The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About93-068RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE ADOPTING AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE .BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, State law requires each city and county to have a General Plan which includes a Housing Element; and WHEREAS, The Housing Element is unique among the required General Plan elements in that Government Code Section G5580 et seq is very detailed regarding content and programs that must 6e included in a Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Government Cade Section 65580 et seq requires Housing Elements be updated every five years; and WHEREAS, Butte Countys adopted Housing Element covered the planning period through Tune 30, X992; and WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element (Exhibit 'A") has been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the environmental review study checklist (Exhibit B) prepared on the Draft Housing Element pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the environmental review study checklist identifced potentially significant environmental effects that the project may have had but provisions in the draft Housing Element would avoid or mitigate such effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur; and WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element (Exhibit A) has been studied and reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and a public hearcng held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element contains an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints, a statement of the Countys goals, quantified objectives and policies relating to maintenance, improvement and development of Housing, and a program setting a five year schedule of actions the County will undertake to implement the policies and achieve the gaols and objectives of the Draft Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors adopts the Housing Element (EXHIBIT A), including the amendments of staff memo dated May 5, I993, which element complies with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. ALSD, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors finds that the environmental review study checklist and Negative Declaration with mitigations prepared for the Draft Housing Element identified as Exhibit 'B" is adequate for this project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section b5359 the amended Housing Element be endorsed to show that the above amendments have been approved by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this l Ith day o f May 1993, by the following vote: ,gyES; Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, Thoanas and Chair Houx j~TOE`,S; None ABSENT.' Superva.sor McLaughlin ABSTAINED: None ,~, MARY A 1VE HOUR, CHAIRMA Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST.• John S. Blackloch Chief Administrative Officer and Clefk of the Board r'.' •. Dx~~~ GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT EXHIBIT~_ s Prepared by: f Connerly & Associates with J. Laurence Mintier & Associates November 12, 1992 BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN .. ~ DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Prepared by: Connerly & Associates with J. Laurence Mintier & Associates November 12, 1992 November 24, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Hearings have been scheduled an the Draft Housing Element of the Butte County General Plan. A Negative Declaration with mitigations has been recommended. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Housing Element on December 10, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Draft Housing Elemen# on January 12, 1993, at 10:45 a.m. The purpose of these initial hearings is to receive public comments on the Draft Housing Element prior to submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review. HCD review should be completed mid March, 1993. The tentative schedule of additional public hearings on the Draf# Housing Element are: - Planning Commission hearing March 25, 1993, to receive public comments, review HCD comments, and recommend the Housing Element and any amendments to the Board of Supervisors. - Board of Supervisors hearing(s) April 26, 1993, May 11, 1993 to receive public cammenfs, consider Planning Commission and HCD comments and after any modifications adopt revisions and approve Housing Element. The approved Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for final review and certification immediately following approval by the Board of Supervisors. C:Iwp 501miscl h ouse.2 November 24, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................... i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1-i 1.1 Housing Element Requirements ......................................... 1-1 1.2 Fair Share Allocation: Overall Production Objective .......................... 1-2 1.3 Fair Share Allocation: Affordability Breakdown ............................. 1-2 1.4 Needs, Resources, and Accomplishments .................................. 1-3 1.5 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements .............................. 1-4 1.6 Public Participation ................................................. 1-5 1.7 Organization of the Housing Element ..................................... 1-5 CHAPTER 2: GOALS, POLICIES, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES .................. 2-1 2.1 Affordable Housing Supply ............................................ 2-1 2.2 Conservation/Rehabilitation ........................................... 2-11 2.3 The Homeless .................................................... 2-14 2.4 Equal Opportunity ................................................. 2-16 2.5 Energy Conservation ................................................ 2-16 CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................. 3-1 3.l introduction ....................................................... 3-i 3.2 County Housing Market .............................................. 3-1 3.3 Household Characteristics ............................................. 3-2 Group Quarters .................................................... 3-2 Age ............................................................ 3-3 Ethnic Characteristics ....................................... ....... 3-4 Overcrowding ..................................................... 3-4 Housing Unit Size .................................................. 3-6 Household Size .................................................... 3-7 Large Households ......................................... ........ 3-8 Income ......................................................... 3-10 Housing Affordability ............................................... 3-13 Female Heads of Households .......................................... 3-15 3.4 Housing Stock Characteristics ......................................... 3-16 Housing Stock .................................................... 3-16 Age ........................................................... 3-17 Housing Conditions ................................................ 3-17 Housing Rents and Values ............................................ 3-19 Vacancy Rate ..................................................... 3-21 Tenure ......................................................... 3-23 3.5 Availability of Land and Services ....................................... 3-25 Land ........................................................... 3-25 Services ........................................................ 3-27 3.6 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ................................... 3-30 3.7 Market and Govemznental Influences .................................... 3-31 Government Constraints ............................................. 3-3i Market Constraints ................................................. 3-04 i .` • Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 3.8 Housing Needs .................................................... 3~7 Identification of Housing Needs in Unincorporated Butte County ................. 3-47 Projected Household Growth .......................................... 3~7 Vacancy Factors ............................................ . ...... 3-48 Production Goals (New Construction} .................................... 3-48 Rehabilitation Needs ................................................ 3-50 Need for Assisted Housing and Lower-income Housing Opportunities .......... 3-50 Special Housing Needs .............................................. 3-51 3.9 Housing Program Activity ............................................ 3-58 3.10 Evaluation of Program Implementation - 1984 Element ...................... 3-58 ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION California state law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that covers seven topics or "elements," Those mandatory elements are Iand use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The general plan serves as a blueprint for community growth and change. The plan contains goals, objectives, policies, and programs to guide decisions by County government about private land development and providing public services and facilities. As social, economic, and environmental conditions change over time, it is important that the general plan be periodically revised to effectively address both current conditions and evolving community expectations about the future. Preparation of this housing element was initiated as part of an update of the entire Butte County General Plan. Because of its comprehensive scope, the entire general plan revision is not expected to be completed until Tate 1993. State law, however, requires that the housing element be updated by 3uly 1, 1992. In order to meet that deadline, the housing element has been placed on a faster track far completion ahead of the other general plan components. It is possible that the housing element will need to be further revised based on the work done on the other elements during the next year. 1.1 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS State Iaw is more specific about the content of housing elements than any other portion of the general plan. The housing element is also the only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates. It is the only element that is actually subject to review and 'certification' by the state. This housing element includes all of the following information as required by state law: - A summary of the past housing efforts and an analysis of reasons for their success or failure. • Information about the existing housing stock. covering such items as the amount, type. cost. tenure. and structural conditions of the units. Other areas of concern include overcrowding and the needs of special subgroups of the population such as handicapped citizens, the elderly. homeless persons or single parent households. • An analysis of potential barriers to housing production including various governmental constraints as well as non-governmental ones. • Information about opportunities for improving energy conservation when rehabilitating existing housing and constructing new housing. • Information about existing subsidized housing and the possibility of its being lost due to conversion to market-rate units. • Specific goals. measurable objectives. policies and implementation measures. Objectives must iz-clude targets for housing unit production. based on a "fair share allocation". The "fair share allocation° assigns a specific number of units in different price ranges to all the local jurisdictions in the State. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) I-I ~. Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 generates estimates of the statewide need for housing. This is then broken down into regions. In each region, the area council of governments (in Butte County's case, the Butte County Association of Governments} prepares a more specific regional distribution of the needs to the local counties and cities. 1.2 FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION: OVERALL PRODUCTION OBJECTIVE The Butte County Association of Government (BCAG} has calculated -based on number provided by the State -that the unincorporated area of Butte County should accommodate S,I31 new housing units between January 1991 and July 1997. This represents about 790 dwelling units per year -approximately a 1.7 percent annual growth rate, after accounting for vacancies and replacement dwelling units. Between 1987 and 1991, the County approved 3,9I5 dwelling units, or 783 units per year on the average. The range of dwelling units approved per year was 612 in 1991 and 863 in 1988. Based on the number of building permits approved during the first seven months of 1992, the number of dwelling units approved by permit in 1992 will probably be about the sanie as in 1991. In addition, approximately 500 mobilehomes were located in the unincorporated county area in 1990 and 1991. An objective of 790 dwelling units per year is not unrealistic in light of the unincorporated area building and mobilehome location history over the past five years. Unless the housing market recovers in 1993 from its current recession, however, it is doubtful that this objective can be met, particularly for lower- income households who rely primarily on mobilehomes and multifamily rental housing to meet their needs. The County can certainly create the regulatory conditions to accommodate the objective of 5,131 additional dwelling units between 199I and 1997. Unless households have the income and the confidence to purchase or rent new housing, however, and unless infrastructure problems can be resolved, home builders and mobilehome manufacturers will not be able to provide the amount of housing projected in the BCAG Regional Housing Allocation Plan. Thus, the overall production objective called For in the BCAG plan suggests that the County needs to examine policies and programs that can increase the amount of land capable of accommodating housing i^ excess of six dwelling units per acre, and in particular in excess of 12 dwelling units per acre, to allow the housing market to provide needed low- and moderate-income housing. There are two issues involved in the determining the physical capacity of land to accommodate higher densities: 1) environmental issues (for example, slopes, environmentally sensitive habitats, and flooding and drainage patterns); and 2) the availability and capacity of infrastructure (roads, sewers, water delivery, etc.). The County will need to address these two aspects of Iand capacity in determining whether or not enough land can realistically be designated and developed at densities that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households. i.3 FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION: AFFORDABILITY BREAKDOWN The BCAG Regional Housing Allocation Plan also distributes the total housing production goal among several cost categories: units affordable to households of "very low" income, to "low" income, to "moderate" income, and to "above moderate" income households. Median incomes for the county are estimated by HCD and vary with household size. In 1992, the median household income for a family of four was $31,500. Most governmental programs and private lending criteria assume that households should not spend more than approximately 30 percent of their income for housing expenses (rent or mortgage plus utilities, property taxes, and homeowner's insurance). The amount that a particular household can afford to spend on housing depends on the individual circumstances of that household. in general, one can reasonably assume that most lower-income households could not afford to spend much more than 30 percent of their income for housing without seriously affecting their ability to meet 1-2 •~ Draft Housing 1:'fement November 12, 1992 necessary food, clothing, transportation, and medical expenses. Moderate income households could probably afford to devote between 30 and 40 percent of their pre-tax income to housing expenses without seriously compromising their ability to meet other necessary expenses. For consistency in comparing housing casts in relation to income among the income groups, however, this report uses 30 percent of income-to-housing-expenses as the standard of affordability for all income groups. The fallowing table shows the percentage of median household income for each income classification; the actual range far Butte County given the 1992 median household income; the acceptable monthly housing expenditure far each classification, assuming a 30 percent income-to-housing ratio; and the fair share allocation by income group for Butte County according to BCAG: Very Low Othcr Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Percentage of Median Income 0 to 50 51 to 80 81 ta 120 Above 120 Household Income lunge Up ta $15,700 $15,751-$25,200 $25,201-37,800 Over $37,801 Monthly Expenditure Mange Up to $394 $395-$630 $631-$945 Over $946 Unit Production Goal 1,702 970 970 1,489 5,131 1.4 NEEDS, RESOURCES, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Historically, Butte County has been successful in accommodating its share of the region's housing needs based on the total number of dwelling units constructed in unincorporated communities. Because most of these communities lack basic public facilities, however, development in the county has been overwhelmingly in the form of single family subdivisions at four dwelling units per acre or less. Few, if any, of these homes are affordable to low-income households. The County has adopted various regulatory incentives to encourage the production of lower-cost housing, but without the basic infrastructure to support higher residential densities, these incentives cannot be used. The County has attempted to make use of several state and federal funding programs to assist low-income households, primarily for housing rehabilitation, neighborhood improvements, street repairs, and sewer connections for existing developments. The County has not, however, had the staff or financial resources to effectively use state/federal programs and Iocal strategies to assist the development community in producing housing affordable to low-income households. As a consequence, little affordable housing that has constructed in the unincorporated area, and most of these units are scattered throughout the county (mobilehomes on single family lots and second dwelling units,primarily). Any higher density developments adjacent to Chico or Oroville and requiring urban water and sewer services have typically been annexed to those cities. The County cannot claim credit for past performance for annexed dwelling units, however. Because of the persistent slump in the construction industry, which is expected to last through 1993, it is uncertain if the County's share of all dwelling units between 1991 and 1997 can be met, but the economic recession is beyond the County's control. A comparison of the 1980 and 1990 Census reports and other information reveals several measures of housing needs which have increased: - The number large families in Butte County has increased. - Overcrowding and overpayment for housing have increased in both absolute and relative terms. 1-3 Draft Housing Elemenl November 12, 1992 • A larger percentage of the County's heads of household are single mothers, who have the highest incidence of poverty of any households group. • The number of elderly persons has increased, and although most are financially and physically independent at the time they move to Butte County, as older residents age, their physical and financial needs change. • There is likely a need for a homeless shelter and transitional housing in the unincorporated area, but the magnitude of the need is unknown, since none of the shelter providers could provide precise numbers of clients from unincorporated communities within the County. Logic would dictate that if a homeless facility or transitional housing were constructed in the unincorporated area, it should be located within the Chico or Oroville urban area. • The need for housing for farmworker families is greater than the present supply operated by the Housing Authority. As explained in Chapter 3, Butte County has been successful in designating sand to accommodate its share of the region's growth, in obtaining and using funds to rehabilitate and conserve the existing housing stock, and in obtaining funds for rental subsidies. Where the County has been lacking, primarily, is in its ability to access governmental programs to stimulate the construction of low-income housing and in encouraging developers to take advantage of local regulatory incentives for such housing. The policies and programs proposed below seek to continue those successful programs, therefore, and to focus on new programs that can provide housing for the large low-income families, single mothers, elderly households, farmworker families, and other special needs groups. Because the County's low-income housing construction need is so large in relation to the availability of financial resources and infrastructure, the County will not be able to meet 100% of the low-income housing needs with the programs described below. Even though the County has committed in this Element to pursue long-term solutions to the lack of public facilities and services, these solutions will not have much impact on the County's ability to meet its low-income housing needs during the next five years. The mast effective strategy during this short-term period is to make use of available development capacity within existing urban areas, encourage individual initiatives to provide affordable housing within the existing housing stock {second units), continue to allow mobilehomes on single family lots, and work with developers who have the capacity to construct large-scale developments with the potential to include a range of housing types and costs. 1.5 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The primary policy relationship between the Housing Element and the rest of the General Plan lies in the sufficiency of Land Use Element categories to accommodate the full range of housing needs and in the sufficiency of the Public Facilities Element to identify solutions to the lack of infrastructure in most unincorporated communities. Only those areas deemed suitable for residential development have been so designated in the Land Use Element, so there are no conflicts between resource conservation, noise, safety, other policies in the General Plan which could affect the location of residential development. The programs included in this Chapter address the relationship between housing need, adequate sites at sufficient densities to accommodate the County's share of the county-wide housing need, and public facilities and services that must be available to allow higher density development. 1-4 Draft Housing ~'lemenl November 12, 1992 The Housing Element was prepared in conjunction with fine revision of the other General Plan elements, although on a somewhat accelerated schedule to meet statutory deadlines. The discussion of constraints to housing development relies heavily an the environmental and public facilities information compiled for the General Plan Background Report. Because the General Plan is undergoing a simultaneous update of all its elements, adjustments can be made to the other General Plan Elements before they are adapted to ensure consistency with the Housing Element. I..6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The revision of the Housing Element has proceeded in conjunction with overall revision of the County's General Plan. The public participation process established far the plan has included the periodic distribution of a General Plan Update Newsletter to county residents, "townhali" meetings in several locations throughout the County, meetings before the Board of Supervisors to update them on the progress of the General Plan revision, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Community meetings were conducted in October of 1991 to explain the General Plan update process and to solicit early public input, and again in June 1992 to solicit public comment on important issues and program options. Comn3unity meetings were conducted in Gridley, Paradise, Omville, and Chico. "Community Concern" surveys were distributed at the first round of meetings to obtain early public input on issues that should be addressed in the General PIan. Public comment an the draft Housing Element was solicited through Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings and through the environmental review process for the Element. Public hearings were conducted before the Planning Commission on ,and before the Board of Supervisors on . Notices of these public meetings were published, distributed to interested community organizations representing special needs, minority, and low-income residents, and posted in governmental buildings. County residents will also have opportunities to participate in the implementation of the Housing Element, s many of the implementation measures require the adoption of ordinances ar other specific actions at Board of Supervisors meetings. Through the measures described above, the County believes it has actively sought and pursued public participation and public comments on all phases of the Housing Element revision, and has attempted to include all segments of the community in its public participation process. ~.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 sets forth all the goals, policies, programs, and objectives for housing in Butte County. The background infornation and analysis on which these were based follows in Chapter 3, which is the longest part of the element and covers all the data required by state law. 1-S CHAPTER 2 GOALS, POLICIES, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES The following goals, policies, and implementation measures represents the County's five-year plan of action to meet its housing needs through 1997. Each proposed implementation program contains a description of the intended action, an explanation of the agency responsible for administering the grogram, possible sources of funding (if applicable}, the iimefran~e during which the program would take effect, and anticipated results. Whenever possible, the anticipated results have been expressed in quantified terms. Many of the programs contained in the Element are continued from the County's 1984 Housing Element. Other programs are new to the 1992 Housing Element. The County will endeavor to accomplish the following programs within its financial ability to do so, including the ability to use staff time not compensated by fees for program administration, and other fmanciai limitations facing the County. 2.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY GOAL A: TO PROVIDE FOR THE COUNTY'S REGIONAL SHARE OF NEW HOUSING FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS Policies A.1. The County will continue to adopt community plans, within the financial ability of the County to fnance these plans, to enhance the County's ability to meet its regional share of housing. A.2. The County will continue to annually monitor zoning to ensure that sufficient land is zoned at various densities to meet the County's regional share of housing. A.3. Zoning for higher density residential development will emphasize development within or adjacent to existing urban areas in which public facilities and services can be extended, or within large, master planned developments which the have the financial capability of providing needed public facilities and services for higher density development. Programs 1. Provide Adequate Sites far Housing As previously documented, there are approximately 28,000 acres of vacant land available in the unincorporated county zoned for residential use. About 67% of this land is zoned for large lot (2.S acre minimum) residential use, while another 27%a is zoned for single family residences or mobilehomes at six or fewer dwelling units per acre. Mast of the n'maining vacant land in Butte County is designated for agricultural use (much of this land is in Williamson contracts}, far timber production, or is located in state or national forests and parks. The supply of developable land with adequate infrastructure zoned for residential use in the County is a limiting Constraint, especially for multifamily housing projects that could serve low-income households. 2-1 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1492 Although annexation has accounted for a substantial portion of the County's share of low- and moderate-income housing in the past, Butte County recognizes that it cannot rely on the cities to provide for this segment of the housing market. To improve the capacity of vacant sites in the unincorporated area, the County will take the following actions: a) Apply for available state and federal funding for water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements that would make low- and moderate-income housing feasible. As such funding is extremely limited, the County will have to evaluate methods of providing such needed facilities through private financing as well. b} As part of a long-range plan for improving the development potential of residentially-zoned land, seek funding from the state for a planning grant to prepare a specific plan and facilities plan for the financing of needed facilities that would serve Iow-income housing. c) Seek the financial assistance of developers in preparing community plans or specific plans which can address public service and facilities for new developments. d} Seek to work out an appropriate financing arrangement with Chico and Oroville to charge reasonable fees on new development to pay far the expansion of water and sewer services within their spheres of influence. e) Seek the cooperation of interested developers in establishing community facilities and community service districts to finance needed infrastructure and services where these are financially feasible. Administration/Funding: Community Development Block Grant Program, Farmer's Home Administration, State Clean Water grants or loans, developer fees. Planning and Public Works department will be the lead agencies. Timeframe: Funding applications to be submitted in 1992, 1993, and 1994 if eligible activities can be identified. Financing arrangements with Chico and Oroville with appropriate developer fees to be negotiated between June and December of 1993. Seeking developer interest in preparing specific plans and establishing community facilities/service districts will be an ongoing process for larger developments. Expected Results: A plan showing the public facilities needs and providing for the financing of needed infrastructure. 2. Community Plan and Zoning Consistency The General Plan for the County is based on a number of community plans for specified unincorporated areas, and other portions of the County for which there are no community plans. These plans address land use and other issues reflected in the County's General Plan. Local zoning must be consistent with these plans. During the development and revision of these community plans, the County must ensure that local land use policies, and any changes in zoning to reflect those policies, are not only consistent with the community's development goals, but with the county-wide housing goals and the County's regional share of housing for all income groups. As part of the community planning process, the County will ensure that goals, policies, and implementation measures for community plans are consistent with county-wide housing goals and needs. In particular, the 2-2 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 County will ensure that community plans reflect zoning densities necessary to accommodate low- and moderate-income housing consistent with environmental limitations and the ability of the County to provide infrastructure of higher urban densities. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department is the responsible agency for county planning and will implement this consistency review as part of its on-going planning responsibility. No additional staff time would be required. Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing. Expected Results: Consistency of community plans with county-wide housing goals. 3. Development of Sifes for Multifamily Housing The most critical needs in the unincorporated county area are affordable multifamily rental housing and large family housing, especially for low-income families. Because there are a limited number of sites with suitable physical and environmental characteristics that can be provided with the necessary public facilities, the County must encourage the most productive use of these sites. Multifamily rental housing does not typically provide dwelling units for large families, so the County must also encourage ownership opportunities for faniilies. The County's primary strategy will be to encourage small-scale multifamily projects located in those unincorporated communities that are closest to employment and services. By focusing on a number of small projects, the County can ensure that no one community receives a disproportionate share of the multifamily housing, while at the same time accommodating development within the limits of the available infrastructure. To encourage multifamily projects, the County will offer density bonuses, help interested developers apply for government financing and/or other government subsidies, assist interested developers in acquiring surplus govenunent land suitable for multifamily development, expedite permit processing, and waive fees for low-income dwelling units. These options are discussed more completely under Goal Two. This strategy will be necessary aver the five-year period covered by this housing element, because it is unlikely that any substantial improvement in infrastructure capacity can be achieved within that timeframe. Over a longer period of time, improvement in public facilities can be accomplished as discussed in Prograni One of Goai One. To locate potentially interested developers and nonprofit housing corporations, the County will seek the assistance of the local building industry association and nonprofit housing corporations active in the Sacramento Valley. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department will carry out this program as part of its on-going planning activities, using administrative funds from available state and federal programs whenever possible to pay for the casts of this activity. Timeframe: Contact building industry and nonprofit representatives between January 1 and ]uly 1, 1993. Attempt to identify interested for profit and/or 2-3 Draft Housing Element November Y2, 1992 nonprofit developers by December 1993. Identify state and federal programs which the County to use to help fund site selection, acquisition, and infrastructure by September 1993. Expected Results: Development of 150 units of multifamily housing, of which 60% (90 units) would be affordable to very low-income households, and 40% (61] units) affordable to low-income households. 4. Sites fflr Special Group Housing There are a number of special population groups which the State has identified as in need of a residential living environment for their proper physical and mental fuIfllment. These groups include mobility, developmentally, and mentally impaired individuals; elderly residents in need of 24-hour care; persons with mental illnesses; and individuals recovering from substance abuse. Group homes of six or fewer individuals serving these and other special population groups will be allowed a residential use in any residential zone in the County. Group are best located within access to other social and medical services that mobility and developmentally disabled persons may require. Therefore, this program will likely focus on residential communities within the Chico and Oroville spheres of influence. AdministrationlFunding: The Planning Department will review applications for such homes as part of its development permit processing responsibility. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program. Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing. Expected Results: No quantifiable estimate is available, as the number of individuals benefitted will depend on the level of demand for such facilities. In qualitative terms, a more enriched living environment will be provided to these special population groups. GOAL B. ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Policies B.1. Establish affordable housing goals, to be negotiated, for large-scale developments which contain a mixture of residential densities. B.2. The County will work with other public agencies, developers, and non-profit housing corporations to make use of state and federal programs for low- and moderate-income housing. B.3. The County will also investigate the feasibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds or mortgage credit certificates to provide low-interest financing for affordable housing development, if requested by a developer eligible to use this form of financing. B.4. The County will provide density bonuses to home builders proposing to include a minimum specified percentage of low- and moderate-income dwelling units within residential developments. 2-4 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 B.S. The County will cooperate with the Housing Authority to seek funding from the State of California and the U. S. Fanners Home Administration to expand the supply of housing for migrant farmworkers. B.6. The County will identiFy surplus government property which could be used for the construction of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Programs 6. Density Bonuses Density bonuses provide a developer with additional dwelling units in exchange for the provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. State law provides that if a developer proposes to include at least 20% of the dwelling units in a project at rents/prices that are affordable to low-income households or 10% of the dwelling units in a project at rents/prices that are affordable to very low-income households, the local jurisdiction must offer a 25% density bonus plus at least one other regulatory or financial incentive if needed to make the produetlon of the low-income units financially feasible. State law also requires local government to offer a 25% density bonus to developers who propose to develop at least SO% of the dwelling units in a project for elderly residents. The County presently has a density bonus ordinance in effect which complies with state law and will continue [o implement this ordinance. In addition to continuing its present density bonus policy, the County will undertake the following actions: Identify methods of obtaining greater interest by developers in using density bonuses in conjunction with affordable housing proposals, • Identify constraints that are preventing developers from using density bonuses, and • Prepare an amendment to the County's density bonus ordinance allowing density bonuses, under limited circumstance, for housing affordable to households earning between 80% and 100% of the Butte County median income so long as such density bonuses do riot discourage low-income housing proposals. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department wi11 implement the provisions of this program as part of its planning and development permit processing responsibilities. Timeframe: Report to the Planning Commission by September 1993 on methods of encouraging greater developer use of density bonuses, removing constraints to the use of density bonuses, and amendments to the current density bonus ordinance which would allow limited density bonuses for moderate-income housing. Expected Results: Development of '60 very low-income dwelling units, ~40 low-income dweIling units, and 50 moderate-income dwelling units. 7. Affordable Housing Goals for Large-Scale Residential Development 2-5 t Draft Housing ~'le»tenl i. i November 12, 1992 Large-scale developments which include a range of residential categories have the potential to include affordable housing for low-income residents if infraswcture financing and financial incentives can be arranged. While there can be no precise threshold for the definition of "large-scale", these would typicaIly be areas of a hundred acres or more developed under a specific plan, or some type of master plan, which includes a financing mechanism far infrastructure {such a community facilities district). While opportunities for such development are limited, the County can, through the General Plan, identify areas of the County where it believes such Iarge-scale developments would be appropriate. The County cannot initiate development proposals for large-scale development, but it can certainly express its willingness, through its General Plan and zoning policies, to cooperate with one or more developers who have the capacity to work on a large scale. If the County is presented with an opportunity to approve alarge-scale development proposal, it will require that a developer prepare a specific plan or master plan for the entire area to be included in the development proposal. A development agreement would be required which specified the percentage of dwelling units that would affordable to low-income households. Depending on the size, location, and required public facilities, the affordable housing requirement could range from 5% to 25% of the units in a development. As part of the negotiated agreement, the County would request that at least 9% of low-income units be three and four bedroom units for large families (the percentage of large families in the population at-large). Administration/Funding: The PIanning Department would be the primary point of contact to initiate developer negotiations. The funding for the preparation of a specific plan or master plan would have to come from the developer. Timeframe: No timefranie can be established, since the feasibility of this approach is untested. Expected Results: Assuming no more than iwo such development projects of 1,000 dwelling units meets the criteria for this program between 1992 and 1997, the number of anticipated affordable dwelling units would be 100 very low- incame and 100 Iow-income dwelling units. $. Pursue Funding Under State and Federal Programs There are a number of state and federal progranls which provide low-cost financing or subsidies for the production of low- and moderate-income housing, although funding levels have decreased substantially over the past decade. Certain programs require an application and participation by a local public agency; other programs are for use by non-profit housing corporations and housing authorities, and the remaining programs require application and direct participation by a private developer. Butte County will pursue funding under those state and federal programs that require its direct participation, and provide assistance to non-profit and private housing developers to make use of other programs which require their application and participation. The use of the programs listed below is predicated upon reaching agreements with interested non-profit or private developers to construct low- and/or moderate-income housing. Programs which the County or the Housing Authority can pursue directly are as follows: 2-G ~ Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 State Predevelopment Loan Program. This program provides low-interest, short term loans to public agencies and nonprofit housing corporations to cover predevelopment costs such as land acquisition and preparation, installation of public facilities, plans and drawings, and development fees. Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP}. This program, funding for which has been re-established under Proposition 84 (1988), provides for the development of rental units by private, non-profit, or public agencies subject to the reservation 30 percent of the units for very-Tow and Tow-income households {two-thirds of which must be very-low). Funds can be used for long-term financing or a combination of Tong-term and construction Toan financing. California FarmworEcer Grant Program. This program provides grants to local governments and nonprofit housing corporations to construct or rehabilitate housing for farmworker families. Community Development Bloc[c Grant Program (CDBG). The CDBG program provides funding annually for three eligible activity areas: housing, public facilities, and economic development. Activities must address one of the following three objective: sen+e lower-income people, eliminate slums or blight, or resolve urgent community development needs. Porterville receives an "entitlement" share of CDBG funds each year. HOMEIHOPE Programs. These are new federal program which provide funding for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition. Butte County does not qualify as an entitlement jurisdiction under this program, and could either competitively apply for funding from a state pool of funds or seek to join other jurisdictions in Butte County to form an entitlement consortium. The City will evaluate which of the two alternatives would give the County the best chances of receiving funding on a regular basis. Family Housing Demonstration Program. This is a state demonstration program that provides funding for the construction or rehabilitation of low-income rental housing projects that also provide support services and job training programs. The County would pursue an application under this program only if anon-profit housing corporation is interested in sponsoring such a project and can identify an eligible target population for the project. There are a number of other prograns which provide direct subsidies, mortgage insurance, or low-interest loans to non-profit housing sponsors and developers. Agencies providing this assistance include the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U. S. Farmers Home Administration. Included in these programs are: Technical assistance grants for project feasibility and development, subsidies for shared housing for seniors, congregate housing, farmworker housing, senior housing, self-help housing, transitional housing for homeless individuals, and other targeted groups, mobilehome park purchase and rehabilitation, and project loans and loan insurance. While the County cannot initiate applications under these programs, it can certainly lend its support to low-income projects for which the developer is seeking state or federal assistance. County support would be in the form of regulatory incentives, expedited permit processing, deferred development fees, and density bonuses. 2-7 draft Housing Elemeru November 12, 1992 The County will pursue these programs, in conjunction with programs for which a developer or nonprofit housing corporation must apply, to meet special housing needs defined above for elderly residents, large families, farmworkers, mobility-impaired individuals, and single mothers. Administration/Funding. The Planning Department would be the .lead agency for reviewing low- income development proposals which seek state or federal financial assistance. The Public Works Department or Community Action Agency (under its responsibility as the County's Housing Authority) would take responsibility for preparing slate or federal funding proposals for programs which require the County to be the lead agency. Timeframe: Identify funding cycles for potentially eligible proposals by 3une 1993, apply annually for available programs for which eligible projects are identified, depending on funding cycles. Expected Results: 50 very-low income dwelling units and 75 lower-income dwelling units. 9. Tax-Exempt Bond Financing Public agencies can issue revenue bonds, the interest on which is exempt from income taxation. Because the bonds are issued through a public agency, the investors pay no income tax on the interest earned, the bonds carry a lower interest rate than would otherwise be available to the borrower. Housing financed through tax-exempt bonds can be of two types: Ownership housing, typically single-family homes, in which income qualified first-time home buyers receive a discounted mortgage interest rate. Multifamily rental housing, in which the project owner receives below-market interest rate financing in exchange for reserving a specified percentage of dwelling units for low- and/or moderate-income households. To use this program, a public agency must first locate an interested developer, apply far and receive an allocation from the State Mortgage Revenue Band Allocation Committee, and locate a bond underwriter to assist in the issuance of the bonds. The process typically takes between six months and one year from the time of application to the availability of funds for project development/financing. In the event the County determines that it would be infeasible to issue bonds, it will pursue the alternative option of mortgage credit certificates, which may be issued to qualified borrowers. Mortgage credit certificates provide tax credits to borrowers, which have the equivalent effect of low interest rate financing. One requirement of the program is that the applicant make a deposit of 1/2 of one percent of the bond allocation being requested. The County will seek an interested developer to take advantage of the mortgage revenue bond program and explore the cost and feasibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds. Because the size of a likely project would be small, it may not be financially feasible for the County to issue tax exempt bonds individually. In such a case, the County would look for one or more other interested public agencies to form a joint powers authority to issue bonds jainffy. 2-8 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Administration/Funding: The Planning Department must first identify one or more interested developers in using this financing option. The County Executive must then take the lead in the applying for a bond allocation. If an allocation is received, the County Executive and County Counsel would take the lead in setting up necessary legal mechanisms to issue and administer the bonds. Funding far the required deposit would have to be provided by the developer, and administrative costs of issuing the bonds could be covered through arbitrage (the difference between the interest rate paid to bond holders and the interest rate charged to the developer or home buyers}. Timeframe: Determine feasibility and locate interested developer(s) by December 1944. Apply for bond allocation in 1995. Issue bonds by the summer of 1995, and finish project construction by December 1996. Expected Results: Finance at least one project wish tax-exempt bonds, or provide mortgage credit certificates for borrowers in at least one project. Specified percentage of dwelling units to be affordable to low- andJor moderate-income households. Objective is far 50 very low-income and 75 low-income and i00 moderate-income units. 10. Construction o€ Scattered-Site Housing The federal government has funds available that can be used by housing authorities to construct or acquire housing for low-income households. Funding has been substantially reduced, however. The Butte County Community Action Agency would apply for federal funding to construct one or more rental projects for low-income residents. Such projects would besmall-scale, and every attempt would be made to design and construct housing so that it is indistinguishable from other housing in a community. Privately developed housing of two to six dwelling units may also be possible on scattered sites without public sewer service. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency would apply for funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and would be responsible for project management and operation. Planning Department is responsible for reviewing development proposals. Timeframe: Apply for funding in 1993 and 1995. If funded, complete projects in 1994 and 1996. Expected Results: 25 dwelling units affordable to very low-income households and 1S dwelling units affordable to low-income households far publicly- subsidized units. Based on past development patterns, the County can expect about 200 units of small, scattered multifamily housing to be developed between January 1993 and June 1997. Based on rents in the unincorporated county area, it will be assumed that a11200 units will be affordable to law-income households, but that Wane would be affordable to very low-income households. 2-9 l• Dr¢fr Housing Elemenl November 12, 1992 11. Corr~munity Reinvestment Act The Community Reinvestment Act directs federal regulatory and deposit insurance agencies to encourage Cbe lrlstltutlon5 they regulate or insure to assist in meeting the credit needs of their communities, including low- and moderate-income needs. Federal agencies are supposed to evaluate compliance with the intent of this act when reviewing applications by financial institutions for charters, new branches, mergers, relocations, and other regulated transactions. Until recently, the provisions of this act were not widely implemented. Butte County will identify financial institutions operating in the County that fall under the requirements of this act and request that these institutions develop specific programs for providing financing for low- and moderate-income housing in the unincorporated area. Administratian/Funding: The Community Action Agency would be responsible for assisting public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private developers in identifying local financial institutions willing to assist in the financing of affordable housing projects. Timeframe: Meet with interested lending institutions by June 1993, obtain commitments for funding by December 1993. Expected Results: Financing of one or more affordable housing project(s) at favorable terms--50 very low-income units and 7S low-income dwelling units. lz. Manufactured Housing Outside Mobilehome Parks The County will allow manufactured homes on land zoned for residential use, subject to the same development standards as site built housing, according to the requirements of state law. Administration/Funding: Planning Department and Building Department will process applications. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program. Timeframe: July 1, 1991 and ongoing Expected Results: Increase in opportunities for mobilehomes and manufactured housing as a lower-cost alternative to site built housing--200 very low-income dwelling units and 15D low-income dwelling units. 13. Second Units The County will evaluate its present second unit requirements and make changes that would make this option available to a wider variety of households. Administration/Funding: Planning Department will recommend changes to its second unit requirements and make recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors. Timeframe: Report to the Board by September 1993. Board to adopt changes by December 1993. z-10 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Expected Results: Approval of 100 permits for second dwelling units, SO affordable to very Iow-income households and 50 affordable to Iow-income households. 2.2 CONSERVATIONIREHABILITATION GOAL C: IMPROVEICONSERVE THE EXISTING SUPPLY OF HOUSING Policies C.I. Provide assistance to inspect and identify code violations in residential buildings. Code inspection shall be on a voluntary basis. C.2. Continue to apply, when feasible, for state and federal assistance for housing rehabilitation for Iow-income households. Rental housing that is repaired with government assistance shall remain affordable to Iow-income households for a specified period of time. C.3. Require the abatement or demolition of substandard housing that is not economically feasible to repair. C.4. Seek, through code enforcement, the private rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units and provide financial assistance, when available, to owners of dwelling units occupied by low-income households. In applying this policy, the County shall seek to avoid the displacement of low-income househalds. C.S. The County will periodically survey housing conditions in the unincorporated area to maintain a current data base on housing repair needs. C.b. The Community Action Agency will continue to pursue all sources of funding for'maintaining and expanding the supply of subsidized housing for low-income households. Implementation Programs 14. inspection Program Butte County will, on a request basis, arrange for an inspection of residential properties to identify health and safety hazards, and other building code violations, which should be corrected. Health and Safety Code inspections are currently provided at no charge by the Health Department, and are usually performed on a complaint basis. Amore comprehensive voluntary building code inspection would be performed by the Building Department for an inspection fee that covers the cost of this service. The fee may be waived for dwelling units occupied by low-income households, the owners of which would be offered an opportunity to participate in County housing rehabilitation programs. Administration/Funding: The Health Department will perform Health and Safety Code inspections. The Building Department will administer the code inspection program, to be funded from inspection fees. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program. Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing_ 2-I 1 • Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Anticipated Results: Depends on the number of requests. 15. Cade Enforcement and Abatement The County will identify dwelling units that are unsafe to occupy and initiate appropriate action to have those units comply with building code standards or removed. This action would be taken only in the most extreme cases in which the owner of the dwelling units is unable or unwilling to make necessary repairs, in which repairs are not feasible, or in which the dwelling unit has been abandoned. Administration/Funding: The Building Department will enforce code requirements and order unsafe units to be vacated (and demolished, if necessary). Staff time estimated to implement this program is Iess than four hours per month, as the number of anticipated number of code enforcement actions is one per month. Timeframe: July 1991 to .Tune 1996. Anticipated Results: Removal or reconstruction of 155 dilapidated dweIIing units. 16. Rehabilitation of Substandard Dwelling Units The County has identified 550 dwelling units in need of rehabilitation, and 155 dwelling units in need of replacement or reconstruction. Most of these substandard dwelling units are occupied by low-income households. Mast low-income owner-occupants lack sufficient financial resources to obtain private funding for home repairs. Owners of rental units occupied by low-income households often cannot financially support repairs to dwelling units from the rents they can charge. To encourage private rehabilitation efforts, the County will apply far andlor assist eligible households in applying for various private, state and federal sources of funding for housing rehabilitation and home repairs, which would include the correction of health and safety hazards, weatherization, and the addition of space to alleviate overcrowding. AdministratianfFunding: The Public Works Department will apply annually, or as frequently as feasible, for funding under the State Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Program, the California Housing Rehabilitation Program, and the Fam~er's Home Administration. In addition, the County will provide information to, and assist owners of, rental properties in applying for funding under the California Housing Rehabilitation Program, fronm the California Housing Finance Agency, and from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Planning Department will assist CDBG-eligible homeowners receiving Social Security inconme in applying for Special Circumstances Grants (one- time grants of $750 for home repairs), and for private sources of financing for weatherization. In some cases, several of the above-mentioned programs will be combined to undertake home repairs. Owners of rental properties who are assisted in financing the rehabilitation of their dwelling units will be 2-12 Draft Norrsrng Element November 12, 1992 required to rent the units to low-income households and to sign a rent limitation agreement. Timeframe: Apply in 1993 and 1995, at a minimum, for new funds, more frequently if demand exists. Continue to make rehabilitation loans from program income Expected Results: 160 dwelling units. 17. Relocation Assistance Butte County will consider adopting an ordinance requiring owners of dwelling units which are vacated for violation of housing and building codes to gay relocation expenses for displaced residents and to provide the displaces with the right of first refusal to return to the units upon its repair. The County will evaluate various relocation strategies and options to be included in the ordinance. Administration/Funding: The Building Department and Public Health Department would administer this program, if adopted by the Board. The owner will be required to pay the relocation expenses. Timefrarne: Present ordinance to Board of Supervisors by December 1993. Adopt ordinance by April 1994. Expected Results: Provide relocation assistance for up to i55 households living in dilapidated dwelling units. 18. Maintenance of Housing Condition Data Base The County will maintain current information on the condition of dwelling units in the unincorporated County area by periodically updating its housing conditions data base. Approximately every two years, the County will resurvey housing conditions to ensure the currency of its housing conditions information. Administration/Funding The Public Works Department will direct these surveys, far which the County can apply for funding under the Small Cities CDBG Planning~I'echnical Assistance grant. Timeframe: Conduct housing conditions surveys in 1993 and 1996. Expected Results: Maintenance of housing conditions data base that is not more than 30 months old. i9. Zoning Flexibility For Housing Rehabilitation. Many dwelling units in need of rehabilitation were constructed prior to adoption of current zoning standards. As a consequence, some of these dwelling units are non-confonming as to lot size, set-backs, yard requirement, location, and other zoning requirements. To avoid discouraging rehabilitation efforts, the County will continue to allow non-conforming dwelling units to be 2-13 Dreft Housing Elemenl November 12,1992 rehabilitated so long as the non-conformity is not increased and there is no threat to public health and safety. Adminisiradon/Funding: The Planning Department will determine the zoning status of dwelling units to be rehabilitated based on inspection information provided by the Building Department. The staff time required for the determination of zoning status will be included in any permit fees, except that the County may waive any extra charges for low-income households. Timeframe: Current and ongoing. Expected Results: Zoning status to be determined for properties rehabilitated under programs one through four. 24. Preservation of Mobilehorrre Parks Mobilehome parks represent an affordable housing aitemative for many county residents, especially senior citizens. Rising operating costs, changes in ownership, and other factors can result in space rents increasing faster than the ability of residents to afford those rents. One potential method for mobilehome park residents to control their housing costs is for residents to cooperatively own and operate the mobilehome park in which they live. The residents would need to arrange for the financing of such an acquisition and the establishment of a reserve fund for the repair and maintenance of major capital facilities in the park. This program is for existing parks, and not the construction of new resident-owned parks. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency or Public Works Department would assist interested mobilehome park residents in applying for state technical assistance and financing for mobilehome park acquisition. Timeframe: Any time assistance is requested. Expected Results: Undetermined--depends on interest by mobilehome park residents and availability of state funding. 2.3 THE HOMELESS GOAL D: TO MEET THE NEEDS OF HOMELESS PERSONS POliCieS D.1. To refer homeless persons within the service area of existing homeless shelters to those shelters. D.2. To determine the need for a homeless shelter in the unincorporated county area for homeless persons in one or more portions of the county who do not have access to existing shelters in the OrovilIe and Chico urban areas. D,3. To provide transitional housing as a bridge between homeless facilities and independent living. 2-14 __.. Draft Nousrng Elenaenl Implementation Progrartts 21. Homeless Services Referral November 12, .(992 The County will refer residents in the unincorporated area who are within the Chico or Oroville urban areas to homeless facilities in those cities. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will be the primary contact and referral agency for homeless services. Timeframe: Current and ongoing. Expected Results: Assist homeless persons in the unincorporated Chico and Oroville areas to access homeless services. 22, Homeless Services in the Unincorporated County Area The County will deierniine the need for a homeless facility and identify appropriate areas in unincorporated communities that are not readily accessible to homeless services in Chico or Oroville. The County has not yet received any requests for homeless shelters outside of the Chico or Oroviile. According to homeless service providers, there may be a potential demand, although this demand cannot be quantified. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will annually monitor client information from homeless service providers to determine if a demand exists for a facility in the unincorporated area. The Planning Department will evaluate the Zoning Ordinance and recommend amendments to designate zones in which homeless facilities would be appropriate. If there appear; to be a need far a nameless facility in the unincorporated county area, the Community Action Agency could request that the County apply for CDBG Pianning/Technical Assistance Funds to identify a specific site and work with a homeless service provider to prepare preliminary plans for such a shelter. Timeframe: Community Action Agency to evaluate honaeiess provider client records annually. Planning Department to recommend zoning code revisions for Board of Supervisors adoption by December 1993. Expected Results: On-going monitoring of homelessness in the unincorporated county area. ldenti6cation of areas in unincorporated communities which are appropriate for homeless facilities. 23, Provide Transitional Housing The County will contact homeless service providers and nonprofit housing corporations to determine the interest in providing one or transitional housing sites in the unincorporated county area. Suitable locations and communities would have to be deterntined. Transitional housing can either be temporary shelter, such as a single family home, or a group home, which provides a bridge between a homeless shelter and independent living in conventional housing. ]ob training, education, and other 2-IS !• 1 -Jraft Housing Elemenl November 12,1992 social services may be provided during this transition period to allow the homeless individual to prepare for independent living. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will be the primary contact agency. The Planning Department would be responsible for reviewing applications for transitional housing. Timeframe: Contact homeless service providers and nonprofit housing corporations by June 1993, identify the need and appropriate locations by December 1993. if the need is established and funding can be secured, provide one or more transitional housing facilities by December 1994. Expected Results: Assist homeless persons in unincorporated communities to make the transition between homeless shelters and conventional housing. 2.4 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY GOAL E: TO ENSURE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Policies E.1. The County will continue to provide referral services to state and federal agencies which process housing discrimination complaints. Implementation Programs 24. Fair Housing Program The County will provide referral services to individuals with housing discrimination complaints. Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will provide referral services. Timeframe: Current and ongoing. Expected Results: Resolution or referral of lOQ fair housing complaints, conducting of annual education/awareness programs. 2.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION GOAL F: TO PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION Policies F.1. Continue to implement state energy-efricient standards. F.2. Develop site design guidelines For energy conserving development patterns. F.3. Provide weatherization assistance to low-income households. 2-16 Draft Housing Elentenl November I2, I992 Implementafion Programs Z5. Implement State Energy Conservation Standards. The State of California has adopted a number of energy conservation requirements for residential dwelling units. These conservation standards apply to all newly-constructed dwelling units and additions to existing dwelling units. Conservation requirements address insulation; the amount and orientation of glazing; shading by landscaping, mechanical, and architectural devices; heating and cooling system efficiency; the amount and placement of thermal mass (materials that absorb heat during the daytime and release heat at night}; and other aspects of building energy efficiency. Applicants for building permits must show compliance with the state's energy conservation requirements at the time building plans are submitted. Administration/Funding: The County Building Department is responsible for implementing the state's energy conservation standards. This includes the checking of building plans and other written documentation showing compliance and the inspection of conswction to ensure that dwelling units are constructed according to those plans. The cost of enforcement is paid for from fees paid at the time plans are submitted. No additional staff dme would be required to implement this program. Timeframe: Current and ongoing. Expected Results: Checking of all building plans for compliance with state energy conservation requirements. Increase in energy efficiency will save an unspecified amount of energy and natural resources. 26. Site Development Standards The state energy conservation requirements address energy conservation in the construction of dwelling units. Additional energy conservation can be obtained from development patterns which encourage conservation. The County will prepare guidelines for site development that encourage energy conservation. These guidelines will address the use of landscaping to reduce energy use, the orientation and canfiguratian of buildings on a site, and other site design factors affecting energy use. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department will develop guidelines in consultation with the Building Department, the California Energy Commission, and other jurisdictions with such guidelines. Timeframe: Guidelines to be prepared by December 1993. Expected Results: lmproved energy conservation in new residential developments. Energy savings cannot be estimated at this time. 2-17 Draft Housing Element 27. Energy Conservation Assistance for Low-Income Households November 12,1992 Substantial energy conservation, and reduced utility payments, can be realized from weatherizing and insulating older dwelling units. Many low-income households and owners of rental units lack the financial resources, however, to undertake such home improvements. There are several programs that can provide financial assistance to low-income homeowners and rental unit owners whose tenants are low income: Community Development Block Grant Program, California Housing Rehabilitation Program, Pacific Gas & Electric, Special Circumstances Grants (specified homeowners on Social Security only), North Coast Energy Services, and Farmer's Home Administration. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department will include weatherization and energy conservation as eligible activities under CDBG and CH1ZP programs which it administers. The Agency will provide information and refer eligible property owners to other programs. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program. Timeframe: Current and ongoing. Expected Results: Weatherization and insulation of 200 dwelling units. 2.6 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES $u6sidy, Incentive, and Density Ilonus Markel-Rate % of SLAG Programs Housing Total Allocation New Construction Very low SI5 0 515 279'0 Low 450 100 550 579a Moderate 350 650 1,000 103go Above Moderate 0 2,920 2,920 1969'0 Total 1,315 3,820 5,135 184% Rehabilitation Very Low 100 NIA Law 60 NIA Relocation Very Law 125 N/A Low 30 NIA These quantified objectives are based the specific objectives of each of the previously described housing program in conjunction with the assumption that the private market will meet the needs of all other moderate- and above moderate-income households. it is assumed that density bonuses, state and federal subsidy programs, and bond financing (Goal B, Programs 1, 3, and 4) would be used in conjunction with other programs, so the very low- and low-income quantified objectives for these programs are not counted separately in the total objectives shown above. 2-i8 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 INTRODUCTION According to State Law, every city and county in California must prepare a housing element as part of its general plan. The housing element must document in detail the existing housing stock and existing and projected housing needs. Responding to these requirements, this chapter profiles Butte County's existing housing, assesses existing and projected needs, analyzes resources available to meet these needs, and reviews governmental and nongovernmental constraints on the production of affordable housing. 3.2 COUNTY HOUSING MARKET Between 1970 and 1980, the population of Butte County grew at a rate two and one-half times that of the state of California. During this time similar population growth was experienced by many non-urban foothill counties throughout California. Metropolitan counties, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, actually last population to the slower-paced, more recreation-oriented counties of the state. The fact that retirees are seeking the amenities of rural life is demonstrated by the 55 percent increase iuI the population of Paradise between 1970 and 1980. This community has been, by far, the fastest growing area in Butte County even though it contains some of the greatest environmental barriers to more intense urban development. Unlike the state, which experienced a decrease in the importance of immigration as a component of population growth between 1970 and 1980, new residents moving into the County accounted for 90 percent of the County's population growth. During this same period, the increase in households in the unincorporated area comprised 63.49 percent of county-wide household growth. Population growth and household growth within the unincorporated County area accounted for 56 percent and SS.1 percent of the county-wide growth, respectively, between 1980 and 1990. Table 3-l shows these projections in detail. TABLE 3-1 POPULATION CHANGE BY JURISDICTION - Y970-1990 County of Butte 1970 I980 Change Change Total Percent Total 1970-80 Percent Total 1980-90 Percent Biggs 1,1I5 1.190 1,413 26.990 1.090 1,581 11.990 0.890 Chico 19,580 192% 26,603 35.9010 18.09'0 40,079 50.690 22.0% Gridley 3.534 3.59a 3,982 12.790 3.090 4,631 16.390 2530 Oroville 7,536 7.49'0 8,683 15.290 6.090 11,960 3.79'0 5590 Paradise 14,560 I4.390 22,57I 55.190 17.090 25,40$ 1259'0 13.99'0 Unincorp 55,644 54.5% 80,599 44.990 55.09'0 98,461 22.190 54.09'0 Total 101,969 I00.09n I43,SSI 41.I% 100.0% 182,I20 26.6% I00.090 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1470, 1980, 1990 {Summary Tape File 1). 3-1 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-2 FOPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH - 1990 - 1992 County of Butte 1990 1992 Change Iota! Total 1990-92 Percent Biggs 1,581 1,659 4.9% 0.9% Chico 40,079 43,701 9.0% 22.9% Gridley 4,631 4,741 2.4% 2.5% Oroville 11,960 12,291 2.8% 6.4% Paradise 25,408 26,008 2.4% 13.6% Unincorp 98,461 102,807 4.4% 53.7% Total 182,12p I91,2p7 S.p% 100A% Source: California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit, Report E-5, May 1992. 3.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS In 1980, there were approximately 31,579 households in unincorporated Butte County. The projected growth rate for households in Butte County is slightly higher than that of population; this is because household size in the County is decreasing. (see section on overcrowding.) In 1990, the U.S. Census reported a total of 40,998 housing units in the unincorporated county area, representing a rate of increase of 29.8 percent, compared to a population increase during the same period of 22.2 percent. The Department of Finance estimated 42,701 dwelling units in the unincorporated area as of January 1, 1992, of which 39,956 were estimated to be occupied. GROUP QUARTERS In 19$0, there were 835 persons residing in group quarters, such as student housing, convalescent and nursing homes, and boarding houses, in the unincorporated areas of Butte County.. In 1983, the figure grew to 1,449, a considerable increase in a short period of time. The increase was due primarily to an increase in student housing and group homes for senior citizens. The predominant area in the County for group housing is in and around the City of Chico. The reason for this is that California State University, Chico, students share expenses and housing near the campus. Group housing quarters elsewhere in the County are generally nursing or rest homes. In January of 1992, the California Department of Finance reported that there were 510 persons in group quarters in unincorporated Butte County (compared to 488 by the 1990 Census), substantially fewer persons than reported in 1980. This decrease is due, in large part, to the inco~paration of Paradise. The 3990 Census reported 4,705 persons in group quarters county-wide (2.58% of the population}, 1,764 of which were persons in institutions. The percentage of persons in group quarters county-wide is much higher than in the unincorporated area due to the location of student housing, group homes for elderly residents, the county jail, and other group facilities in the cities. 3-2 Draft Housing Elenienl November 12, 1992 The I7epamnent of Finance estimated a smaller group quarters population as of January 1, 1992 - 4,440 persons. One could expect seasonal shifts of this magnitude in the group quarters populations because of changes in occupancy in student housing, elderly group housing, and inmate populations at various times of year. AGE As is true of most rural communities throughout the state, Butte County has become an attractive location for retirement. In 1980, 29 percent of the population was over 62 years of age. The attraction of retirees to Butte County is not a new phenomenon, as is particularly evident in the City of Paradise, which in 1980 had a median age of 46.5 years. Senior citizens (over 62 years) represent 33.8 percent of this City's population, and Paradise contains almost 30 percent of all County residents over age 62. Although the City of Pazadise still contains many elderly persons (34.4% of City's population in 1990), the percentage of elderly persons in the County has decreased significantly since 1980. In 1990, the Census Bureau reported that 20,285, or 20.6 percent of the population, were over 52 years of age or more in unincorporated Butte County. The Census Bureau reported 36,683 persons, 20.1 percent of the population, county-wide aver 62 years of age in 1990. This younger population county-wide reflects a shift in the average age of residents migrating into the County and an increase in child-bearing. A net in-migration of younger households and families into the County would coincide with the statewide trend of younger Households migrating out of highly urbanized areas. The population age characteristics for both the unincorporated area and county-wide are shown in Table 3-3. TABLE 3-3 AGE OF POPULATION Butte County - 1990 Unincorporated County Age in Years Number %a of Total Under 5 years 6,708 6.89'0 5 W 9 years 7,530 7.790 10 to 14 years 6,7$6 6.9{90 I5 to 19 years 5,930 6.190 20 to 2a years 6,438 6.590 25 to 29 years 6,367 6.490 30 to 34 years 7.265 7.39'0 35 to 39 years 7,702 7.99'0 a0 to 44 years 7,137 7.290 45 io 49 years 5,429 5.5%.0 50 to 54 years 4,406 4.490 55 to S9 years 4,503 4.690 60 to 64 years 5,329 5.49'0 65 to 69 years 6,014 6.290 70 to 74 years 4,871 4.990 75 years and over 6,046 6.29'0 Total 48,4G1 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Total County Number °k of Total 12,336 6.89'0 13,073 7.190 11,3$9 6.39'0 12,549 6.99'0 18,644 10.2% I3,149 7,390 13,212 7.290 13,340 7.390 11,946 6.590 8,810 4.990 6,98$ 3.8% 6.920 3.89a 8,32$ 4.690 9,779 5.3~ 8,545 4.70k 13, l I2 7.390 182,120 100.0 % 3-3 ,.. ~'~~ ~ ~ Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS In 1980, 7.2 percent of County residents in the unincorporated area defined themselves as racial or ethnic minorities. Of this figure, 1.2 percent were Black, i.8 percent Native American, and 0.9 percent Asian- Pacific Islander. Persons of Spanish origin represented 5.3 percent of the total unincorporated population, but due to revised reporting practices, this fgure is not comparable to the other percentages. (See Table 3-4) The most recent data reveals that Spanish-speaking households comprise 1.8 percent of all unincorporated area households and are located primarily in the non-urban areas of the County. Black households comprise 1.9 percent of all unincorporated urban areas. In El Medio, an unincorporated area abutting the southern boundary of the City of Oroville, almost 16 percent (225} of the households are Black. This community contains 49 percent of all Black households in the unincorporated portions of the County. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that S,I82, 8.3 percent, of the persons in the unincorporated area defned themselves as members of racial or ethnic minority groups. This is a slight increase from 1480. Of this figure, 1.3 percent were Black, 2.2 percent Native American, 2.0 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, and 3.5 percent defined themselves as other. Even though the percentage of Asian-Pacific Islanders has more than doubled since 1980, the overall minority population is relatively small in Butte County. This is typical of most rural foothill and mountain counties in California. In 1990, the total number of persons of hispanic origin was 7,106, or 7.8 percent of the total unincorporated area population. This is an increase from the 5.3 percent reported in 1980. The table below shows ethnic characteristics in both the unincorporated and total County in 1990. TABLE 3-4 ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS Butte County - 1990 Ethnic Characteristics White Black American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut Asian or Pacifc Islander Other Race Total Unincorporated County Number % of Total 90,269 91.7% 1,182 1.3% x,021 2.0% 1,823 1.8% 3, i 66 ~ 3.2% 98,461 Ioa.o% Total County Number % of Total 165,200 90.7% 2,361 1.3% 3,241 1.8% 5,170 2.8% 6,148 3.4% 182,120 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. OVERCROWDING A common measure used to calculate the number of families which are inadequately housed is the extent of overcrowding (defined as by the state and federal governments as LO1 or more persons per rnom). 3-4 Draft Horasing Element November I2, 1992 Overcrowding is considered by most housing experts to be harmful to the physical and mental well-being of the occupants. The extent of overcrowding is directly related to the average number of persons per household. Specifically, household sizes increases at the sanie time that housing casts rise relative to income, the degree of overcrowding is likely to increase. Overcrowding is also directly related to the average number of rooms per dwelling. Clearly, if large housing units are being built, while household size is decreasing, the extent of overcrowding will decrease. A comparison of the 1970, 1975 and 1980 Censuses indicated that the average County household size decreased from 2.8 to 2.6 to 2.25 persons. At the same time, the median size of dwelling units fluctuated between 4.7 and 5.2 rooms. These facts point to the probability that the proportion of overcrowded households has decreased. The number of overcrowded households increased, however, due to the large increase in the County's population. The 1980 Census reported that the percentage of overcrowded households in the County had decreased from 6.9 percent in 1970 to 3.5 percent in I980. The 3.5 percent figure, however, includes the number of overcrowded households in the entire County. The rate of overcrowding in the unincorporated area was 4.2% in 1980. Table 3-5 shows the rate of overcrowding For the entire County, each of the five incorporated cities within the County, and the resulting rate of overcrowding far the unincorporated County. TABLE 3-5 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS -MORE THAN 1,OI PERSONS PER ROOM County of Butte - 1990 Area Owner Renter Total Percent of all Change from Households 1980 Butte County 1,217 Biggs City 22 Chico City 100 Gridley City 92 Oroville City 51 Paradise Town 129 Butte County (unincorporated) 820 2,41I 3,628 S.I% 45.7% 25 47 9.0%a 95.6% 634 734 4.7% 88.0% 101 193 11.2% 75.0% 360 4I 1 9.1 % 279.2% 204 333 3.0% 20.0%a 1,090 1,910 4.7%a 119% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990. In 1990, the total number of overcrowded households in Butte County increased from 2,005 to 3,628. The percent of overcrowded households also increased, from 3.5 percent in 1980 to 5.1 percent in 1990. The total number of overcrowded households in the unincorporated County also increased, from 1,278 (4.2%a} in 1980 to 1,910 (4.9%a} in 1990_ The reversal of the trend of overcrowding during the 1970s suggests that many fanlilies experienced difficulties during the 1980s in finding affordable housing of adequate size. 3-5 Draft Housing ~'le»ient November I2, 1992 The increase in the percentage of overcrowded households coincided with an increase in housing costs relative to family incomes. With the incidence of overcrowding increasing county-wide during the last ten years, evidence exists that many minority and student households in live in overcrowded conditions. Farmworker housing in Gridley contains many eight- to nine-person households in two and three bedroom units. The Human Resources Corporation in Chico reports an average household size of 7.125 persons. Both the City of Chico and California State University, Chico believe that the proportion of students "doubling up" has also increased. HOUSING UMT SIZE As mentioned previously, there has been an increase in dwelling unit size in the County. According to the 1984 U.S. Census, there was an average of 4.7 rooms per household. The table below shows the distribution of housing units throughout the County by number of rooms per unit. TABLE 3-G HOUSING UNiT SIZE County of Butte {Unincorporated} - 1980 Number of Rooms Number of Housing Units Percent 1 Room 513 1.5% 2 Rooms 1,684 5.1% 3 Rooms 3,163 9.5% 4 Rooms 7,915 23.7%a 5 Rooms 9,645 28.8% b or More Rooms 14,497 31.4% Total 33,377 100.0 %a Median: 4.7 rooms per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. In 1990. the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the number of housing units with one to three bedrooms decreased in the unincorporated area since 1984. As Table 3-7 shows, the percentage of one to three bedroom housing units decreased Io 14.8 percent from 16.1 percent of the housing stack in 1984. Although more three- and four-bedroom housing units were constructed in the unincorporated area since 19$4, these units were not affordable to many large families and did not alleviate overcrowding. 3-6 Draft Horrsing Elemenl TABLE 3-7 HOUSING UNIT SIZE County of Butte (Unincorporated) 1990 Number of Rooms 1 Room 2 Rooms 3 Rooms 4 Rooms 5 Rooms 6 Rooms 7 Rooms 8 or More Rooms Tota[ Number of Hoasing Units Percent 555 2,011 3,513 8,403 11,245 8,559 3,780 2,932 40,998 Median: 5.5 rooms per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 1.3% 4.9% 8.fi% 20.5% 27.4% 20.9% 9.2% 7.2%a 100.0 % November 12, 1992 HOUSEHOLD SIZE The average household size in the unincorporated area of Butte County has dropped from 2.8 persons per household in 1970 to 2.25 persons per household in 1980. The Census Bureau in 1990 reported that the average household sized increased to 2.48 persons per household, the same average size estimated by the Department of Finance in ]992. The Department of Finance reported that there were 2.55 persons per household in unincorporated Butte County 1992. The Census and Department of Finance data suggest that the trend toward smaller household sizes has actually reversed, at least temporarily, as more families have children. Statewide data suggest that first generation immigrant families, on the average, do have more children and larger households sizes than second or third generation Californians. Table 3-$ shows the 1990 distribution in the County. The number of persons increased in each category except for households of 6 or more persons, which decreased from 1,087 households in 1980 to 907 households in 1990. 3-7 3~ E ~raf~ Housing Element November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-$ HOUSEHOLD SIZE County of Butte (Unincorporated) - 1990 Persons in Unit 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 or more Persons Tota! Households Owners Renters Total Percent 5,547 2,973 8,520 22.2% 11,988 3,401 15,389 40.1% 3,884 1,947 5,83I 15.2% 3,619 1,556 5,175 13.5% 2,364 1,261 2,038 5.3% 37,419 100.0% Average, Occupied Units: 2.48 Persons Per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. LARGE HOUSEHOLDS The 1980 Census indicated that approximately IO percent of the households in the unincorporated County area were large households (five or more persons). About 31 percent of the dwelling units in the unincorporated area have six or more rooms (three or more bedrooms). A family of five or six persons could be housed without being overcrowded in a dwelling unit with three bedrooms. Families of seven or more persons, however, would need dwelling units with four or more bedrooms. In 1990 the Census reported 3,625 large households (five or more persons) in the unincorporated area. Approximately 37 percent (37.3%) of the dwelling units in the unincorporated area have six or mare rooms, an increase of 6 percent from 1980. Together, these two statistics could indicate that the County has an adequate supply to meet the demand of large households. The Census reported 6,222 large households county-wide, approximately 8.7 percent of all households. Large households are slightly more common in the unincorporated area--9.3%. Table 3-9 shows the household size in the unincorporated area and county-wide in 1990. 3-8 Draft Notrsing Element Household Size Family Households 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons S Persons 6 Persons 7 or mare Fersons IVonfamlly Households 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons fi Persons 7 or more Persons Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1994. TABLE 3-9 HOUSEHOLD SIZE Butte County - 199U Unincorporated County Total County November 12, 1992 13,384 34.9% 22,644 31.690 5,428 14.1 ~ 9,331 13.09'0 4,908 12.89'0 8,149 i I.49o 2,114 S.b9o 3,594 5.09'0 895 2.39'0 I,422 2.09'0 551 1.49'0 989 1.490 $,344 21.89'0 18,182 25.590 2,005 5.290 4,691 6590 403 l .190 1,317 1.890 257 0.790 _1,133 1.fi9o 45 0.1010 148 0.290 12 --- 39 --- 8 --- 30 --- 38,360 180.0%a 71,ti65 104.4% There is no shortage in the number of housing units of sufficient size to accommodate large families. This comparison of household sizes with the number of rooms does not explain, however, the extent to which large families are actually able to afford and occupy dwelling units with enough space to meet their needs. The County would need to request a special Census run to determine the perceniage of income devoted to housing by income group for large families and the number of rooms in dwelling units occupied by large families to make this direct comparison. It is highly likely that many large families do not have enough income to afford dwelling units of sufficient size to meet their needs (although there is no way quantify this assumption without a special Census run}. It would be difficult to explain, otherwise, why so many households remain overcrowded in the presence of an adequate supply of housing. In 1985, the Depar#n~ent of Finance, Population Research Division developed population projections for the County through the year 2000. These projections were based on the historical trend of decreasing household size and less than optimal employment forecasts. The projections for Butte County's average household size are as follows (The 1990 projecioon is based on the U.S. Census Bureau Summary Tape File 1 }: 1985 2.40 persons per household 1990 2.55 persons per household (1990 U.S. Census} 1995 2.38 persons per household 2000 2.36 persons per household In light of more recent population trends, the Department of Finance may need to revise its assumptions prior to updating its population forecast. 3-9 Draft Housrrrg Elenrerrl INCOME November 12, 1992 Among households in the unincorporated county area, 36.9 percent, (8,904 households}, have incomes of less than 80% of the median Butte County median income. These households are considered to have low or very low incomes by state and federal definitions. Several communities in the County have even larger populations of very low-income people. The Chapmantown (southeastern Chico) and El Medio (South Oroville) areas are chief among these communities. A ].980 door-to-door survey of the Chapmantown neighborhood found that 83.5 percent of all households in the area had annual incomes below 80 percent of the County median income. In 1.97$, the median annual income of Chapmantown households was $4,129.24, approximately one-half the County median income. Median income rose to $8, l05 by 1980, but was still only 62 percent of the $13,012 County median. The El Medio community has similar income characteristics. Almost 80 percent of all households in this area are low income. Butte County has traditionally had a median income that is substantially below that of the state -generally $2,000 ar $3,000 Iess. Tn 1980, far purposes of their Section $ programs,lhe Department of Housing and Urban Development reported a median income of $14,700 for Butte County compared to a "non- metropolitan" median of $18,600. Butte County's median income in 1990 still lagged substantially from the statewide median. The $22,776 reported by the Census was only 64% of the statewide average of $35,798 in 1990. Table 3-10 shows the income distribution reported by the Census Bureau in 1990. 3-10 Draft Housing Elemenl TABLE 3-10 BUTTE INCOME 1990 November 12, 1992 Income Level Households Percent Families Percent Income Groups $ 0- 4,999 4,165 5.84'0 1,529 3.30Yo $ 5,000- 9,999 9,717 13.5% 3,461 7.4% $1©,Q00- 12,499 4,808 6.7% 2,500 SA% Very Low . $11,38$ $ 15,000- 14,999 4,573 6.44'0 2,735 5.99'0 S 15,000- 17,499 4,244 5.99'0 2,443 5.29'0 $17,5Q0- 19,999 3,875 5.4% 2,395 5.1% Low . $1$,211 $ 20,000- 22,499 4,151 5.$9'0 2,797 6.0% $ 22,500- 24,999 3,227 4.69'0 2,339 5.0% $ 25,000- 27,499 3,489 4.9% 2,424 5.2% Moderate R $27,331 $ 27,500- 29,999 3,043 4.2%n 2.252 4.84'0 $ 30,000- 32,499 3,239 4.54'0 2,462 5.39'0 $ 32,500- 34,999 2,178 3.0% 1,736 3.74a $ 35,000- 37,499 2,514 3.S~Yo 1,910 4.1% $ 37,500- 39,999 1,669 2.370 1.330 2.8% $ 40,000- 42,499 2,094 2.9% 1,767 3.89'0 $ 42,500- 44,999 1,351 1.99u i,i52 2.54'0 $ 45,000- 47,499 1,729 2.49io 1,420 3.09'0 $ 47,500- 49,999 1,064 1.5% 964 2.101'0 $ 50,000- 54,499 2,112 2.9x70 1,781 3.89'0 $ 55,000- 59,999 1,666 2.3°!0 1.453 3.19`0 $ 50,000- 74,999 3,244 4.5°!0 2,773 5.94'0 $ 75,000- 99,999 1,895 2.6% 1,665 3.6% $100,000 or more 1,731 2.4% 1,424 3.09'0 Median Average Income Inconte Butte County $22,776 $30,168 Biggs $21,694 $25,425 Chico $19,005 $26,476 Gridley 19,375 $23,522 Oroville $16,614 $21,866 Paradise $22,954 $29,072 Noses: Income bracket shown in bold represents the very !ow-income level, which was $11,388 in 1990. Income bracket underlined represents the low-income level, or $18,221 in 1990. The double underline income bracket represents the moderate-income level, which was $27,331 in 1990. EMPLOYMENT The primary economic base of the County has traditionally been in agriculture and manufacturing. Recently, however, services and trade industries have contributed more to employment growth than agriculture and manufacturing. The occupational outlook for Butte County, as well as surrounding counties, is that skilled fobs wiII increase in the near future, gradually replacing the need for workers who rely on physical effort. The implications of this within the housing market will be subtle and meaningful in the years to come. Although "professional" occupations will increase, the service industry will contribute more substantially 3-11 Draft Housing Element November 12, ,1992 to the County's job growth. Service occupations include the preparation and serving of food and drink, custodial work, retail sales, health services, personal services, and domestic services. The growth in services jobs is fueled by the overall increase in population, particularly among retirees and near-retirees. These jobs tend to below-paying and tend to be associated with a higher percentage of low-income households. However, the high rate of unemployment in Butte County may counterbalance this trend. The County continues to suffer from the lack of a strong economic base. Tn March 1980, the unemployment rate in Butte County was 10.9 percent, compared to a state rate of 6.0 percent. By 1982, unemployment swelled to 14.7 percent. The ecanomic recession across the country in 1980 and 1981 has been felt in Butte Caunty where job losses have been experienced in both the building and lumber industries. Poor weather in 1981 and 1982 also contributed to the high unemployment rate. In determining the future labor force and employment trends, two main sources were used: 1990 Census data and Employment Development Department's (EDD) "Annual Planning Information" For projection purposes a constant 10 percent unemployment rate was assumed. According to the 1990 California Employment Development Department's (EDD) "Annual Planning lnformatian", actual unemployment rates may vary from year to year. EDD made projections based on a 1989 historical unemployment rate for Butte County of 7.9 percent, for example. EDD projects a total employment within the County of 63,275 by the year 1993. This is an increase of 16,625 jobs from 19$0, an increase of 5,950 jobs from I988. According to the EDD, the bulk of this projected growth in jobs will be mainly the result of a growing population. According to the EDD report, the five-year Forecast of wage and salary employment by industry for Butte County calls for growth, in spite of minimal increases in agriculture, a sluggish wholesale trade industry, job losses in transportation and public utilities, and the depressed state of the County's lumber and wood industry. EDD's projections for the 1993-96 period could be very different if the present recession persists into 1993. Employment increases in Butte County through 1993 and beyond will be driven by population growth. The expanding population will keep the demand high for new housing; retail goods; and health, business, automotive, and personal services. More residents in Butte County will mean more children in the public schools, which will raise the demand for more teachers and other school related staff. The EDD projections for employment in the unincorporated County are shown below. 3-12 • Draft Housing Element November I2, 1992 TABLE 3-11 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS BY INDUSTRY County of Butte - 1980-1993 Residents Industry 1980 1988 1493 1490* Total, alI industries 46,650 57,325 63,275 70,880 Total nanagriculture 43,450 54,075 54,950 66,534 Mining & construction 2,175 2,575 3,100 5,307 Manufacturing 4,100 5,450 5,550 7,120 Transportation & public utilities 2,625 2,475 2,350 3,809 Wholesale trade 2,100 1,725 1,725 1,964 Retail trade 9,775 12,975 14,800 14,319 Finance, insurance & real estate 1,950 2,800 2,975 4,103 Services 9, i50 13.925 16,400 17,184 Government I L,575 12,125 13,050 12,728 * dab categories of employed civilian Butte County residents. The number of employed residents is higher than the number of jabs in Butte County as more county residents commute to work in other counties than commute to work in Butte County from other counties. 5onrces: California Employment Development Deparpnent, 1990. U. S. Census Bureau, 1990. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The relationship of the cost of housing and the ability of residents to afford housing is a primary concern in the examination of any housing market. Until recently, a common standard has existed in gauging the percentage of income that should be allotted for housing expenditures: households paying more than 25 percent of income were considered to be "overpaying" for housing. Such a simple rule, applied during the relatively stable period of housing costs during the 19SOs, 1950s and early 1970x, made sense. The "25 percent nlle" became less relevant as household characteristics and housing financing began to change rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. New developments in the housing market are changing this common rule of housing affordability. Tile increasing price of housing, and, more recently, new mortgage instruments far financing a housing purchase, have changed the housing cost-to-income equation. The reality of the 1990s is that the percentage of income that households can reasonably devote to housing expenses depends on household characteristics {i.e., single, married, or with children), the Ievel of income {very low, low, moderate, etc.), and whether a household is a renter or a homeowner. A "reasonable" percentage of income devoted to hauling expenses could range from as little as 15 percent of income (for a large, renter fancily at the poverty level, for example) to as much as 50 percent of pre-tax income (for a single, above moderate-income honeowner with no other long-term debts). In fact, many households in California pay 35 to 40 percent or more of their incomes far housing expenses. Greater personal expenditure for housing is, in fact, one of the first adjustments made, as housing prices and financing mechanisms change. It is difficult at this time to establish criteria for an acceptable ratio of housing expense to household income. The flexible rate mortgage instrument, with no cap on interest rates, will make it difficult for any household making a housing purchase io predict or control the amount of their housing payment. 3-13 i~ l~. Draft Housing Elenrenl November 12, 1992 Although no community standard for affordability can be set forth in the present environment of change, it can be said that in the future, Butte County households will spend more for housing. A conservative estimate would be a range of 30 percent to 40 percent of income is the maximum that most household could afford to pay for housing, depending on household income and lifestyle. Most state and federal programs now use a 30 percent ratio of income-to-housing expenditures as the measure of affordability. Households paying more than 30 percent of their income far housing expenses are considerate to be "overpaying" for housing. An evaluation of the extent to which Butte County households are overpaying for housing can only be done using past standards and data that is available. Far households residing in the unincorporated County, the relationship of household incomes to housing costs between 1975 and 1990 has been summarized below. The number of households in four categories of household income is compared to the housing supply, divided into four groups by its affordability, using the " 25 percent rule" of affordability for 1975 and 1980. The "3Q percent rule" is used in the 1990 part of Table 3-12. TABLE 3-12 RELATIONSHIP OF HOUSEHOLD INCOMES TO HOUSING COSTS Butte County (Unincorporated} - 1975 0- $4,171- $6,673- Income Categories $4,174 $G,G72 $14,488 $1U,049t % of County Median 0-50{Yo SO-$09'0 $0-1209'0 120%+ Number of Households 5,069 3,835 4,025 11,254 Housing Cost Categories 0-$87 $88-$139 $140-$208 $290+ Number of Units 4,425 4,232 5.465 10,060 Butte County (Unincorporated} .19$0 Ixtcome 0- $5,507- $10,410- Categories: $ti,50G $!0,409 $IS,ti14 $15,615+ Number of Households 7,801 4,838 6,68$ 12,550 Housing Cost Categories 0-$135 $136-$216 $217-$325 $326+ Number of Units* 812 2,236 3,113 1,362 Butte County (Unincorporated) - 1990 Income 0- $11,389 $18,222 Income Categories $II,388 $18,221 $27,331 $27,332+ 90 of County Median 0-SO~o 50-8p9'a 80-120 120°la+ Apprax # of Households 8,312 6.558 5,894 17,620 Housing Cost Categories 0-$285 $286-$455 $456-$683 $684+ Approx # of Units 6.970 5,370 7,910 18,110 *Only includes rental units. Sources: I975 Special Census, Butte County; U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990. ccor ing to a to omiatton ,n a e - ,there are not as many oustng units a or a e to ower- income households (those with incomes below 84 percent of the County median) as there are households in this income category. Table 3-12 supports the hypothesis that overpaying for housing occurs primarily 3-14 Draft Housing Clement Navem6er 12, 1992 among low-income households, but the data are to limited to compare precisely the supply of housing affordable to each income group. The 19$0 and 1990 Censuses contain the most recent data on income devoted to housing expenses. The Census Bureau reported that 58 percent of all renter households in Butte County in 1980 paid more than 25 percent of their income far rent, up front 39 percent of all renters in 197$. Tn comparison, only 27.2 percent of all homeowners paid more than 25 percent of their income to housing costs in 1980, down from 27.65 percent in 1970. According to the 1990 Census, 4,723 {26%) owners and 6,I8$ renters (64%} in the unincorporated county area paid more than 25% of their income for housing. The percent of owner households paying 25% or more of their income for housing has declined slightly, while the percentage of renter; paying 25% or more for housing has increased substantially. This difference in trends between owners and renters is probably explained by the difference in mobility between the two groups, and the greater affluence of home owners. Home owners do not move as frequently as renters, so their housing expenses do not rise as quickly. Conversely, rents in Butte County have risen faster than renter incomes. Since 19$0, a 30% of income-to-housing-expenses standard had became the most common measure of "overpayment." According to the 1990 Census, 3207 {IS%} home owners in the unincorporated county area, and 4,999 {5l%) renters paid mare than 30% of their income for housing expenses. In most regions of the state, the proportion of households devoting overly large percentages of their incomes to housing expenses is particularly high among Iow-incon3e renter households and tends to be exacerbated by higher housing costs in cities. Butte County is no exception to this statewide phenomenon. Of the estimated I5,1401ower-income households in Butte County who paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing expenses in 1990, 2,940 were homeowners and 12,220 were renters. While more low- income homeowners paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing lived in the unincorporated area than in the cities (1,560 of 2,940), only one-third of low-income renters (4,280 of 12,200) paying more than 30 percent of their incon3e for housing lived in the unincorporated area. The total number of low-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income far housing expenses represented 39 percent of low-income households. FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS In 1980, almost 12 percent of all families in the County were headed by women. The percentage of female-headed families whose incomes were below poverty level was 27 percent. Statewide, families headed by women have become an increasingly more common occurrence and thus are an important population group to analyze. Households headed by women tend to have Iower incomes, which in tum requires an additional need for child care, transportation, and affordable housing. In 1990, there were 4,955 female-headed households with children. These female-headed family households represented seven percent of the total households in the County. In the unincorporated azea there were 2,372 female-headed households with children, or six percent of the total households in the unincorporated County. Single mothers have the highest poverty rate, as a group, of any population group. The 1990 Census reported that 53% of children living in single-mother households were below the poverty level. This is a typical pattern across the state, particularly in rural counties, in which between 40% and two-thirds of children of single mothers are impoverished. The rate of impoverishment of children of single rnather; age five and under is especially alamaing--nearly 70% 3-15 Draft Noosing ~'lenterrt TALE 3-13 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD TYPE Butte County - 1990 Hause#rold Size and Type 1 Person Male Hauseholder Female Householder 2 or mare Persons Family Households Married-Couple Family With Related Children No Related Children Other Family Male Householder, No Wife Fresco[ W/Related Children No Related Children Female Householder, No Husband Present W/Relaied Children No Refaced Children Non-Family ~louseliolds Male Householder Female Householder Total 38,350 Unincorporated County Number % of Total 3,434 $.99'0 7,332 10.29a 4,906 12.89'0 10,850 15.19'0 9,032 23.59'0 14,963 20.9%a 13,464 35.I9o 21,835 30.5% 7$9 2.090 1,392 1.9% 524 I.4% 95I 1.39'0 2,372 6.29`0 4,955 7.0°10 1,099 2.8~Yu 2,209 2.89'0 l,645 4.390 4,341 6.1% 1,095 2.$9'0 3,017 4.2% 100.0% 71,665 I00.0%a November 12, 1992 Total County Number % of Tatal Source: U.$. Census Bureau, I990. 3.4 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS Determining how well an area's existing housing supply meets the needs of its residents is one of the major purposes of any Housing Element. This detemminatian is the foundation for an analysis of local goverrunent policies and actions needed to bring the housing supply into conformity with the housing needs of the population. Before unmet housing needs can be accurately determined, however, a thorough inventory of housing characteristics and development trends must be made. This section contains such an inventory of unincorporated Butte County's housing supply. HOUSING STOCK The 1980 Census reported 31,579 housing units within the unincorporated area. The mast common type of dwelling in the unincorporated area is the single-family home, which accounted for approximately 65 percent of all dwelling units in 1980. Approximately 14 percent of the 1980 unincorporated area housing stock was composed of multiFamily units in structures of two or mare units. In 1990, the Census reported 40,998 housing units in the unincorporated county area. Single-family homes, still the mast comnmon type of housing unit, accounted for 54.$ percent of all housing units in the unincorporated County. In the total County, single falmmily homes accounted for 58.0 percent {44,18?) of 3-1G Draft Nortsing Element November 12, 1992 the 76,115 housing units in the County. Multifamily structures in the unincorporated County has decreased as a percentage of the total from 14 percent in 1980 to 10.4 percent in 1990. The Department of Finance reported 42,701 dwelling units in the unincorporated county area as of January 1, 1992. Of the total number of dwelling units, 27,011 (63.3%) were single family units, 4,822 (I 1.2%) were multifamily units, and 10,868 (25.5%'0) were mobilehomes. Since 19$0, it appears that more single family dwelling units and mobilehomes Dave been constructed or located within the unincorporated county area, and relatively fewer multifamily dwelling units have been constructed. Mobilehomes have increased throughout the County at a greater rate than any other housing type. They are now the predominant type of new housing in Butte County. While the actual number of new mobilehomes in non-urban areas is low, the number of these units in relation to other types of housing is very high. Mobilehomes account for approximately 21 percent of all housing units in the unincorporated county area. In 1983, mobilehomes accounted for 31.5 percent of all new dwelling units. The growth in the number of mobilehomes in the unincorporated County continued through the 19$Os as the Census reported that 10,374 units {25.3%'0) were mobilehomes or trailers, an increase of 4 percent since 1980. The growth of mobilehomes then is not primarily a urban phenomenon. County-wide, mobilehomes comprise only 17.7 percent of the total housing stock. AGE The median age of aII dwelling units in 1977 was 15.7 years for the unincorporated community of Paradise, and 16.5 years for the rest of the unincorporated area. For the unincorporated area excluding Paradise, less than half of all units were constructed prior to July 1960. Dwelling units built before 1939 accounted for 14.8 percent of the total housing supply. The median age of all units in 1980 was 17 years, and for the unincorporated area the median age was 16. Because of rapid growth in the unincorporated area over the past twenty-five years, its housing stock is relatively new. Even so, there are 11,107 dwelling units in the unincorporated county area that are over thirty years old, about ono-in-four dwelling units. These dwelling units are the most likely to require repair or rehabilitation. HOUSING CONDITIONS Since 1980, them was no current, reliable source of inforniation regarding the condition of housing in the unincorporated area. (The 19$0 Census did not include infarn~ation on substandard or dilapidated housing.) Although the 1975 Special Census collected data on housing conditions, subsequent surveys of individual communities within the County have proven that the 1975 Census seriously undercounts the extent of blighted housing conditions. According to the 1975 count, housing units in the unincorporated area, excluding Paradise, that failed to meet local standards of health and safety (i.e., that are substandard) totalled 7.2 percent of all units. Dilapidated units comprised 0.7 percent of the unincorporated County housing supply, while substandard units capable of rehabilitation accounted for 6.5 percent of all units. Although these percentages for substandard housing are low, they are derived from the only county-wide survey of housing conditions since the 1970 Census. They have, therefore, been used in the analysis of housing needs as minimum estimates only. ' The areas with the highest concentration of unsound housing in the unincorporated area are Chapmantown, which abuts the southeastern boundary of the City of Chico, and EI Media, located on the southern border of the City of Oroville. 3-17 • Drift Harrying Elenrenr November 12, 1992 A 1983 survey of ~apmantown indicated 46 percent of alI housing units need rehabilitation or are beyond repair. The El Medio community has areas where as much as 80 percent of all dwelling units are in need of rehabilitation. To remedy substandard housing conditions in these two neighborhoods, Butte County has applied for and received nearly $4 million in funding under various state and federal programs since 1975 for housing rehabilitation. Between I980 to 19$S, the County rehabilitated approximately 70 dwelling units, largely with Community Development Block Grant funds. Between 1986 and July 1992, the County has rehabilitated another 68 dwelling units, with ten additional rehabilitation applications pending. Because of the extent of physical blight and the high levels of poverty and unemployment in the Chapmantawn and South Oroville communities, the County will continue to designate these as project areas for its Community Development Block Grant progran3. In 1990, Connerly & Associates, Inc., completed an updated housing conditions survey in Gfiapmantown, EI Medio, and other unincorporated communities with a substantial number of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation. The results show that l04 of the 1,418 {7.3%} households surveyed were dilapidated and not suitable for rehabilitation. Table 3-14 summarizes the survey results for Chapmantown and Ei Medio. TABLE 3-I4 HOUSING CONDITIONS County of Butte (Unincorporated} - I990 Housing Unit Chapmantown Sound Minor hiaderate Suhst. Dilapidated Total Single-family 479 29 22 Multifamily 105 0 19 45 594 El Med a 0 584 29 22 19 ~ 45 fi99 Single-family 526 5! 39 Multifamily 9 4 13 SS fi84. Total Sutte County Total 6 535 55 45 12 25 4 59 35 719 Single-Family 1005 $0 Gi ~ Multifamily i i 4 ~ 32 100 1,278 Tota! l,ii9 S4 G7 12 44 4 140 104 1,418 Source: Connerty & Associates, inc., 1990. Although Chapmantown and El Medio have the highest concentration of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation and replacement, there are other communities with substantial nun2bers of such dwelling amts, as well. Conrlerly & Associates, lnc. also surveyed I,77b dwelling units in Dayton, Durham, Feather Falls, Forbestown, Hancut, Nelson, Nord, Palern~o, Pulga, Richvale, Stirling City, and'1'hernialito The consultant found 405 substandard dwelling units In these communities, of which 359 needed rehabilitation and 4fi needed replacement, 23 percent of the total number of dwelling units. Although the survey results show that 22 percent of the housing in the communities surveyed are substandard, it is likely that housing conditions in the unincorporated county area are better, overall, than in the communities surveyed. The consultant specifically excluded subdivisions that had been constnreted 3-I8 Draft Norrsing Elemenl November 12, 1992 within the past twenty years from its survey. The actual need for rehabilitation in the unincorporated county area wiIl be between the 7.2 percent figure cited in the 1975 Special Census, and the 22 percent found in the 1990 survey of fourteen communities. Based on the age of the housing stock in the unincorporated county area, the overall housing conditions found in the 1975 Special Census, and the results of the 1990 survey in fourteen communities, a reasonable estimate of the total proportion of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation in the unincorporated County area is ten percent {4,304 dwelling units), and the proportion of dwelling units in need of replacement is one percent (430 dwelling units}. HOUSING RENT5 AND VALUES The market price of single-family homes in the County has risen dramatically in the past several years, a trend experienced by prospective home buyers in every jurisdiction of the state. While housing development costs, such as labor, material, and land are certainly on the rise, the asking price for homes is also dependent on market demand. There are a sufficient number of buyers in the County who can pay over $70,000 {the maximum price that a low-income Butte County family of three could afford in 1992) for a single family home to justify this price level or more. Obviously, market conditions have excluded a substantial proportion of lower- and moderate-income families from purchasing a home in Butte County. A special study conducted in early 1984 focused on county-wide housing rental and sales price averages. The average price far athree-bedroom home in the north County was $93,617 (ChicaParadise area) and $53,000 in the south County (Oroville area). The average rent for atwo-bedroom apartment was $313 per month in the north area and $244 per month in the south area. This study also revealed that mobilehomes sold for an average price of $21,500 in north Sutte County and $10,950 in south Butte County. Space in mobilehome parks averaged $97.00 in the north County and $77.00 in the south County. In 1990, the Chico Board of Realtors reported an average home price in the Chico area of $170,000 for all homes sold, and an average of $70- to $75,000 in the Oroville area for three-bedroom houses. These home prices reflect both the incorporated and unincorporated areas in Chico and Oroville. These prices represent an 82 percent and 37 percent increase in average home prices between 1984 and 1990 in the Chico and Oroville areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported a median housing unit value of $94,000 in the County in 1990. The median for the unincorporated County reported by the Census Bureau, was $9b,000. The results are shown in Table 3-15. 3-19 - - t,. Draft Housing Element November 12, 199 TABLE 3-15 HOUSING UNIT VALUE Butte County - 1990 Unincorporated County Total County Housing Cinit Value ]Number % of Total Number qfo of Total Less than $15,000 116 0.79'0 190 0.6~ $15,000 to $19.999 77 0.49'0 109 0.396 $20,000 to $24,999 106 0.69'0 172 0.69a $25,000 to $29,999 140 0.89'0 201 0.7% $30,000 to $34,949 210 1.29'0 332 1.1% $35,000 to $39,999 239 I.49o 393 1.3% $40,000 to $44,999 315 1.9% 619 2.1% $45,000 to $49,999 498 3.09'0 888 3.0% $50,000 to $59,999 1,330 8.19'0 2,423 8.390 $60,000 to $74,999 2,104 12.8% 4,089 13.4% $75,000 to $99.999 3,637 22.29'0 6,&44 23.4% $100,000 to $124,999 2,414 14.7% 4,510 15.79'0 $125,000 to $149,999 1,891 i1,5~Yo 3,347 11.4% Slsa,ooo to $174,999 1,183 7.29'0 1,931 6.6% $175,000 to $199,999 664 4.0% 1,048 3.59'0 $200,000 to 5249,999 755 4.69'0 1,074 3.69'0 $250,000 to $299,999 3$7 2.39'0 546 1.89.0 $300,000 to $399,999 220 i.39o 302 1.090 $400,000 to $499,999 S 1 0.39'0 67 0.29'0 $500,000 or more 35 0.29a 51 0.1°/a Total 15,372 t00.p% 29,736 I~.Q% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Between 19$1-1983, rents increased an average of from 5 to 20 percent. Housing prices in the north County rose from 6 to 17 percent, during the same period. Additional analysis is needed to determine the trends in the south County market. While some of these prices may seem high compared to the housing market in the County five years ago, they are low when compared to the state. The 1990 Census Bureau reported a median rent payment of $369 in renter-occupied units in the County. The median rent for renter-occupied units in the unincorporated County was $37'1:. The table below shows the rental payments as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. 3-20 Draft Housing Elentenl November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-16 CONTRACT RENT IN SPECIIiIED RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS ]Butte Caunty - 1990 Payment Value With Cash Rent Less than $100 $100 to $149 $150 to $199 $200 to $249 $254 rn $299 $300 to $349 $350 to $399. $400 to $449 $450 to $499 $500 to $549 $550 to $599 $600 to $649 $650 to $699 $700 to $749 $750 to $999 $1,000 or more I~lo Cash Rent Total Unincorporated County Numl-cr % of Total 130 1.2% 286 i.03a 351 3.35o I,039 3.8ga 555 5.3oio 1,425 5.2%a 808 7.7go 2,225 82% 1,081 10.3% 3,076 11.3% 1,407 13.5% 3,S 12 12.9°10 1,577 15.1% 3,873 I4.390 1,333 12.8'3'0 3,452 I2.7% 844 8.1'Yo 2,200 8.i9io 561 5.49'0 1,531 5.6% 386 3.730 952 3.S% 248 2.39`0 725 2.b9o 159 1.59'0 537 1.9oJo 99 o.99io 456 1.6% 26$ 2.5~a 755 ~ 2.8% 23 0.29'0 95 0.3go 584 5.69'0 956 3.5% 16,414 100.0 % 27,095 100.4% Total County ~fumbes °,b of Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. In comparison to these housing cost increase, the median income in Butte County increased by 75% between 1984 and 1990. Although the overall increase income for the entire population was sufficient to keep pace with the increase in housing costs, it is doubtful that the purchasing power of low-income households was able to keep pace with rising housing costs. The increase in overcrowding and the percentage of households "overpaying" for housing between 1980 and 1990 supports such a hypothesis. VACANCY RATE Since 1980, the Department of Finance has reported an increasing level of vacancy in Butte County. The Department estimated the vacancy rate for unincorporated Butte County to be 5.5 percent and 5.1 percent for the incorporated areas, compared to 5.3 percent for the entire County reported by the 1980 Census. In 19$3 DOF estimated the vacancy rate for the entire County at about 7.3 percent, the same level as in 1990. Vacancy rates are typically higher in the unincorporated area (8.43 percent in 1990) relative to the incorporated areas (6.11 percent in 1990). Census reports show a lower vacancy rate than the Department of Finance estimates. The difference naay be due to a difference in definition of vacant dwelling units. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 2,638 vacant housing units in the unincorporated County, a vacancy rate of 6.43 percent. The Census reported 4,450 vacant units in the total County, a vacancy rate of 5.85 percent. Both of these vacancy rates are much lower than estimated by the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance's 1992 estimate of vacant units was 6.43% in the unincorporated county area and 5.83% county-wide. These estimates appear to be very close to the Census Bureau's 1990 report. 3-21 l~ ~. Dra, ft Housing Element November 12, 1992 The higher vacancy rate reported by the Census and the Department of Finance probably results from the increase in second homes and other dwelling units that are not available for sale or renk According to the 1990 Census, 60% of all vacant units in Butte County were reported as being held for seasonal use, for migrant workers, as rented or sold and awaiting occupancy, or as "other" vacant. The vacancy rate for dwelling units actually available for sale or rent was only 2.3%. In the unincorporated area in 1990, the Census reported that 436 (16.5%) of the vacant units were available for rent, 186 {7.1%) units were available for sale, and the remaining 2,016 (76.4%) units were reported as other vacant. Vacant units reported as "other" include seasonal hauling, second homes, and units that are uninhabitable. The overall vacancy rate of units actually available far sale or rent was about 1.5%. The optimal vacancy rate, assuming 2%a for owner-occupied dwelling units and 5% for rental units, is about 3%. A certain percentage of the variance in vacancy rates during the decade of the 1980s can be attributed to an absorption by the market of units under construction, thus reported vacant, in 1980: The tables below show the vacancy status by unit type for both the unincorporated and total County. TABLE 3-17 VACANCY RATE STATUS BY TYPE OE HOUSING UNIT Butte County (Unincorporated} .1990 Housing Unit Type Single-family (Detached) Single-family (Attached) Duplex 3 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 to 49 units 50 ar more Mabilehome or Trailer Other Total Total Units Vacant Units % Vacant 24,925 1,367 5.4% 907 52 5.7% 894 46 5.1 % 1,628 59 3.6% 466 21 4.5% 4$$ 13 2.6% 555 12 2.1% 236 2 0.8% 10,374 780 7.S% 525 2$6 54.4% 40,998 2,638 ~ 6.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 3-2? Draft Housing Elenten! TABLE 3-18 VACANCY RATE STATUS BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County - 1990 November 12, 1992 Housing Unit Type Total Units Vacant Units % Vacant Single-family {Detached) 44,182 2,239 5.0% Single-family {Attached) 2,083 134 6.4% Duplex 2,441 139 5.7% 3 to 4 units 4,692 197 4.2% 5 to 9 units 2,760 158 5.7% 10 to 19 units 2,359 116 4.9% 20 to 49 units 1,993 bb 3.3% 50 or more 1,192 33 2.7% Mobilehome or Trailer I3,486 992 7.3% Other 927 376 40.5% TotaE 7G,115 4,450 5.$% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. TENURE Calculations on numbers of owner- and renter-occupied units in 1970, 1975, 1978 and 1980 indicate that the County percentage o€owner-occupied units has increasing very slightly. This may be accounted for by the increases in owner-occupied mobilehomes in the County. As of 1980, 63.8 percent of all units were owner-occupied and 36.2 percent were renter-occupied. In 1990, the Census reported that in the unincorporated County 27,222 units (70.9%) were owner-occupied and 11,138 units {29.1%) were renter-occupied. The Census reported 43,649 units (60.9%) county-wide that were owner-occupied and 28,016 units {39.1%) that were renter-occupied. Two trends are evident from the Census data: homeownership county-wide declined between 19$0 and 1990, while homeownership in the unincorporated area continued to be substantially higher than in the cities. Information an housing tenure is shown in Tables 3-19 and 3-20. 3-23 1 Draft Housing Elenrenl November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-19 HOUSEHOLD TENURE BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County (Unincorporated) - 1990 Housing Unit Type Single-family {Detached) Single-family (Attached) Duplex 3 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 2a to 49 units 50 or more Mobilehome or Trailer Other Total Source: U.S..Census Bureau, 1990. Owner-Occupied Percentage Total Units Units Owner-Occupied 23,SS8 18,853 49.1% 855 276 0.7% 848 64 0.2% 1,569 26 --- 445 14 --- 475 12 --- 543 3 --- 234 0 --- 9,594 7,864 20.6% 239 l i0 0.3% 38,3G0 27,222 70.9% TABLE 3-20 HOUSEHOLD TENURE BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County - 1990 Housing Unit Type Single-family {Detached) Single-family {Attached) Duplex 3 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 2a t0 49 UrlitS 50 or more Mobilehome or Trailer Other TOTAL Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Owner-Occupied Percentage Total Units Units Owner-Occupied 41,943 32,391 45.3% 1,949 532 0.7%a 2,302 I53 0.2% 4,495 90 0.1% 2,602 52 --- 2,243 48 --- 1,927 8 --- 1,159 a --- 12,494 10,184 14.2% 551 191 0.4% 71,G65 43,649 60.9% 3-24 Draft Norrsing Element November 12,1992 3.5 AVAILABILITY OF LAND AND SERVICES LAND As a predominantly rural county, Butte County has an abundant supply of land for future development. Attempts to quantify land suited for development are difficult and have only recenfly been initiated. Two measures of the amount of land available for residential development are presented here. The first is an inventory of both developed and undeveloped residential parcels in the County. 'This inventory is completed by planning areas in the County; residential parcels within incorporated areas are shown within planning areas as well as separately. This inventory does not list undeveloped parcels by size or by specific zoning, and, thus, does not measure the aniount of development that can be accommodated. It provides only a general overview of undeveloped land which has been designated for residential development in Butte County. This inventory reveals chat of 13,501 vacant parcels in the County, 13,190 are in unincorporated areas. The most recent estimate of land use designations in the unincorporated area (19$9) is that 44,800 acres of approximately 1.1 million acres (four percent} are designated for urban development. Forestry accounts for 34 percent of the acreage, agriculture 47 percent, recreation six percent, and wetlands and other designation nine percent. This listing is supplemented by an analysis of the residential holding capacity of Butte County as designated by land uses in the General Plan. This inventory lists the number of acres zoned for all uses within separate areas of the County, and estimated the number of dwelling units that can be accommodated in each area. The inventory concludes with a summary of the holding capacity of the County, in terms of both dwelling units and population. An ultimate population of 968,153 is determined based on land use designations of the General Plan. While land zoned for residential development is plentiful in Butte County, not all sites are adequately served by the public facilities which are necessary to accommodate a residential use. In January 1981, the Butte County Planning Department prepared a report summarizing the availability of public facilities to serve new development. The Planning Department updated this report in 1984. There have been no additional community sewer systems developed since 1984, with the exception of a small system in Villa Verona. The following inforniation on sewer and water system capacities is current as of 1992. A critical factor confronting the housing industry in many housing markets, especially iri' California, is the availability of land suitable for residential development. The absence, or shortage, of housing sites contributes greatly to the gross imbalance chat frequently exists between housing supply and market demand. While a constraint, this factor is Iess of a constraint in Butte County than in ocher morn developed areas of the state. Data presented in earlier demonstrates that residential Iand use designations under the County's General Plan will allow an uIrimate residential population of 968,153, which is over six times the present population of the County. At current rates, the General Plan will accommodate 62 years of growth. The estimated acreage in the County's residential land use designations are as follows: Urban Areas All Other Areas Agricultural Residential 40,660 141,400 Low Density Residential ?6,960 3,900 Medium Density Residential 9,673 650 High Density Residential 1,770 -0- 3-25 !" . t Druf1 Housing !s"lenient November 12, 1992 These totals include both acreage that is developed and undeveloped. Unfortunately, the County's present efforts to inventory the land supply do not go beyond this level of specificity. However, in terms of population, it may be said that the County has achieved 15 percent of its holding capacity. This provides some picture of the amount of remaining residential land available. The Agricultural Residential land use is included in the previously cited 47 percent of the land designated for agricultural use. The other three residential categories are part of the 44,800 acres previously cited as designated for urban development. Higher residential densities will reduce the rate of land consumption. It is also important to emphasize that it will not be necessary to commit presently rural or undeveloped lands to residential uses, in all instances, to satisfy projected housing needs. The assessment of required acres takes into consideration that land already committed to residential development or other urban uses may be developed through "infilling" or redevelopment techniques. Although it is virtually impassible to Forecast the extent to which such techniques will contribute to satisfying the need for residential sites, preliminary studies indicate that the impact of such techniques could be significant. Far example, in the Chapmantown and El Medio communities alone, it is conservatively estimated that an approximate 20 net acres could be aggregated, through the neighborhood redevelopment and "infIling" for residential development. The County's con~tmunity development program has already demonstrated the feasibility of using these techniques in these specific neighborhoods. Mare detailed infom~ation on land uses and land capacity is included in Table 1, Chapter 1 aF the Butte County General Plan Background Report. Table 1 is reproduced below, with the corresponding zoning densities For the Genera! Plan categories and the estimated number of dwelling units that could be produced at the mid-range of the allowed density for each category without a density bonus. As discussed below, the lack of public water and sewer systems, and other public facilities, in most of the unincorporated areas of the County constrains development to four dwelling units per acre or less. TABLE 3-21 BUTTE COUNTY VACANT LAND USE INVENTORY (ACRES) (Acreage RounderX to Neares! Whole Acre) Within Sphere of Influence Outside sphere of Influence GP Designation Ag Res LDR MDR HDR Ag Res* LDR MDR HDR Zoned DensitylAc 0 - .4 !-G 7-13 14-20 0 - .4 I.6 7-I3 14-20 Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Aeres Units Aa~s Unit Community Chico 377 75 638 1,914 56 560 10 170 6,420 1,284 109 327 0 0 0 Gridley 48 10 213 639 114 1,140 0 0 1,457 291 80 240 41 410 0 $iggs 16 8 0 0 147 1,470 0 0 875 175 0 0 19 190 0 Orovilie 4,253 850 5,705 17,115 $09 8,090 43 731 1,953 390 0 0 0 0 0 Paradise 2,058 411 909 2,727 0 0 0 0 1,362 272 19 57 0 0 0 Total 6,752 1,354 7,465 22,395 i,12G 11,260 53 907 12,067 2,412 208 624 60 600 D * Total acreage for agricultural residential outside spheres of influeaice is approximate. KEY: Ag Res =Agricultural Residential LDR =Low Density Residential MDR =Medium Density Residential HDR =High Density Residential 3-3G Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 According the calculations above, the County has zoned 27,722 acres of land that would accommodate 39,545 if developed at the mid-range of the allowed densities on the average. The unit breakdown is as follows: i.and Use Category Density Acres Potential Units Income Group Ag. ResJi.ow Density 0 - 6 26,483 29,785 Above Moderate Medium Density 7 - 13 1,186 11,860 Above Moderate, Moderate, I.ow" high Density 14 - 20 53 901 All Income Groups' ' Dwelling units could be affordable to iow- or very iow-income households the density range indicated with regulatory incentives, fee reductions, andlor goventmental subsidies. According to the Regional Housing Allocation Plan prepared by BCAG, Butte County's share of the county-wide housing need between 1991 and 1997 is 1,702 very law-income units, 9701ow-income units, 970 moderate-income units, and 1,489 above moderate-income units. Presently zoned vacant land could, therefore, accommodate the County's share of the region's housing needs if infrastructure can be provided to sites zoned far more than six dweIIing units per acre and regulatory and financial incentives can be offered to developers of low-income housing. SERVICES Sewer System Waste disposal services are provided by community-wide collection and treatment systems only in the urban areas of Butte County. Rural areas, and areas on the periphery of urban areas, in most cases use individual, on-site disposal methods (septic systems) for waste disposal. Community-wide systems have the following capacity for additional waste disposal services; additional capacity may be provided by expansion and/or enlargement of the treatment facilities. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITIES - System Current Use Capacity Chico 5.0 4.5 Gridley fi.5 3.0 Biggs 0.37 0.35 Paradise Unknown mgpd= millions of gallons per day In addition to these systems there are Three small community sewer systems in the unincorporated county area serving individual subdivisions: Stirling City, 5kansen Subdivision, and Villa Verona. None of these systems have significant capacity to serve additional residential development. Chico, Gridley, and Biggs sewage disposal systems are provided by incorporated communities and are available only upon annexation. OraviIle services are proved in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The Ciiy of Paradise is served entirely by on-site disposal systems {septic systems). Neither the Biggs nor Gridley sewer systems have sufficient capacities to serve additional urban development in surrounding unincorporated areas. Biggs has applied for state assistance to improve and expand its sewer system, but is on the "C" List for stale aid. No improvements are planned, at present, 3-27 [:... i. Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 in the Gridley system, although the construction of a second aeration pond could substantially increase its sewer capacity. The City of Chico has sufficient capacity to meet its needs through 1996, including some limited annexation. Chico is currently planning for an additional two mgpd expansion of its sewer capacity after 1996. At present, only the Oroville sewer system has substantial unused capacity to serve new unincorporated urban development (although developers would have reach an agreement with SCOR to expand its service area to include the most likely areas of development north, south, and west of OroviIle). The greatest constraints to residential development are in urban areas of the County not served by a community-wide sewer system (Paradise and unincorporated Chico). The extension of distribution lines of existing systems (Oroville and Chico) could alleviate these constraints. Service to new development outside of Chico may require further expansion of the City's plant prior to 1996. SCOR serves customers by one of three service districts, the City of OrovilIe, the Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District, or the Thern~alito Irrigation District. In 1989-1990, SCOR provided service to 13,792 households, also referred to as Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE}. In 1984-85, the total DUE serviced by SCOR was 12,335. Since then the total DUE growth has been 1,457, an average increase of 243 DUE per year. In September 1990, SCOR projected capacity and growth within the region through the years 2001-2002. Projected totals are 14,917 DUE provided for in 1994-1995 and 16,042 DUE provided for in 1999-2000. Based on these projections, the average DUE growth per year franc 1990 to 2000 is 245. Current capacity in the system is suffcient to accommodate this growth. Without the development of community sewer systems in unincorporated communities, however, higher density urban development requiring community sewer systems will be limited primarily to areas wi'n the service range of SCOR. The City of Paradise has made preparations for a central sewage system that could provide service tQ areas in the Paradise Ridge Area beyond the incorporated City limits. There have been legal and financial constraints however slowing the design process, and the system will not likely be completed until 1994. Development in or adjacent to Paradise is constrained, at the present time, by the suitability of on-site septic systems or small scale holding facilities. This constraint virtually eliminates the possibility of new multifamily housing development in the Paradise area until a sewer system is in place. To make use of these systems would require a conscious county policy of approving development primarily near the existing cities where they can be served by sewer systems. Wish the exception of the Villa Verona sewer system, which will have some limited capacity to serve vacant properties, development elsewhere in the unincorporated County area would be confined to development projects that can use on- site wastewater systems or small-scale wastewater holding facilities. Even with this limitation, there is suffcient capacity to meet county-wide housing needs between 19$4 and 1992. After that time period, however, the County will need to plan for the construction of sewer facilities to serve outlying unincorporated communities or the extension of sewer lines from existing city facilities. Far more detailed information on the status of wastewater systems, see Chapter 6 of the General Plan Background Report. 3-28 Jrafi Housing Element November 12, 1992 Water Services Water supply is not a constraint to development in the County, as abundant groundwater and surface supplies aze generally avaslable. There are presently twelve public water systems in Butte County. As of 1994, the community water systems served 159,164 County residents and provided 1~4 million gallons of water per day to aIl users. The storage capacity of these twelve systems is 25,74 million gallons, so there is adequate unused capacity to meet future needs during the period covered by this Housing Element. The delivery capabilities of the County's community water systems will have to be expanded to serve new residential users. Such expansion is simply a matter of adding distribution lines to connect new development to public water supply systems. Several of the water systems will require upgraded treatment to assure that minimum state water quality standards are met. Even though capacity exists, the several of the water supply distributions systems aze in need of improvement. Chico water service lines are expanded in response to specific development proposals. Other areas of the County contain abundant sources of water and future development will not be constrained by this factor. Although there are no technological or physical barriers to supplying water to new residences and maintaining water quality, the cost of delivering and treating water will have to be home by those users. For more inforniation on the status of water syste»rs, see Chapter 6 of the General Plan Background Report. Drainage Facilities While not quantifiable in the same sense as sewage treatment facilities or community water systems, drainage facilities are essential to the orderly urban development of an area. Housing is directly dependent upon the availability of land suitable for urban development. With the exception of the Paradise area, Butte County's urban communities are constrained in varying degrees by a lack of drainage facilities. Drainage facilities are particularly necessary for the provision of higher density developments needed to meet low-income housing needs and to maintain an effective supply of rental housing. Any multifamily development in outlying unincorporated communities (those not adjacent to existing cities) would need to develop an adequate drainage plan to direct run-off to the appropriate facilities downstream. The cost of such drainage facilities would have to be borne by the proponent of the development. The issue of drainage capacity is not so much a physical constraint as a potential economic constraint. It may not be financially feasible for an individual developer to provide necessary drainage facilities for one project. Drainage studies have been conducted for fourteen areas in Bulte County and have identified the drainage problems and potential solutions. None of the drainage problems would prevent residential development, but the cost of proposed solutions would add to the cost of development. Chapter 6 of the Butte County General Plan Background Report describes the fourteen drainage study areas and proposed drainage solutions. Streets and Traffic Circulation Residential development within and an the periphery of urban areas of the County creates a need for expansion and improvement of the existing street system to accommodate increased usage. 3-29 Draft Housing Elenierir November X2, X992 The absence of an available funding source to finance needed expansions and improvements is an obstacle to residential development. With the passage of Proposition 13 in California, and the elimination of general obligation bonds as a mechanism to finance public facilities, Butte County, with the rest of the state, is searching for new mechanisms to finance construction of the necessary facilities which must accompany residential development. In some areas of the County, specifically the Paradise Ridge Area, development in the unincorporated area will create a strain on the existing traffic infrastructure. The County has adopted a requirement to encourage traffic considerations and preparations during the conswction of additional housing units. Developers are expected to take a greater responsibility for paying the cost of necessary on-site and off site traffic improvements to serve new residents. This expectation translates into an additional financial burden for new residents. The County has identified 57 state highways, county roads, and arterial roads serving the county, incorporated urban areas, and unincorporated communities. These roads are generally functioning at a level of service of "C" or better, a level of service considered acceptable by the County for traffic flow. PIans are currently being prepared by CalTrans, the County, and the cities for improvements to tow state highways and several arterial roads in anticipation of future development. There are no physical barriers that would prevent the County from expanding its system of roads to accommodate new development. New developments will have to bear the cost of chose improvements from which they benefit, however. More detailed information on the County's road system and planned improvements is included in Chapter 5 of the Butte County General Plan Background Report. 3.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION The Butte County is fully enforcing the provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which provides for energy conservation in new residences. The standards found in Title~24 create energy savings of approximately 50 percent over residential construction practices used prior to the standards. The Building Departmeni of the County evidences an awareness of energy conserving design innovations and solar technology. The Department uses the Solar Systems Code Re~~ierr~ Manual and its companion document, the Pool acrd Spa Solar Systems Cade Review Manual, both published by ICB4 to facilitate the installation of appropriate solar systems. Under existing state law (the California Resources Code), local jurisdictions may adopt structural energy conservation standards in excess of the existing state standard. The County has chosen not to adopt more strict local standards. Higher conservation standards would generally increase home buyers' costs more than the expected energy cost savings and would, therefore, increase the housing affordability gap for many Butte County residents. The County has a relatively large remaining aniount of land available for development on which energy efficient subdivision designs and development orientations could be tested. Through the use of its zoning (police} powers, the County could require that new residential developments take advantage of solar orientation and lay out their streets on an east-west axis when possible. There are also a number of jurisdictions in California which have adopted solar access ordinances. Such ordinances, which include bulk-plane standards and other techniques, can increase the use of energy efficient and solar designs in residences. ~-~a Drafr Housing &lentent November 12, 1992 A major concern in the area of energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employment and the necessary transportation lines between them. While specific energy savings are difficult to quantify because of the myriad of variables involved in transportation systems, it is generally true that a close physical proximity between home and work provide transportation energy savings. The County, in its land use decisions, should be aware of this issue and include it in the decision-making process. With regard to other "alternative" energy sources, it should be noted that Butte County is not in an area of either geothermal or significant wind activity, and, therefore, cannot take advantage of these sources. It appears that the County, through the enforcement of Title 24 and by its sensitivity to irunovative design, is making adequate use of residential energy conservation opportunities. The institution of the above described orientation and solar access standards would enhance the County's efforts in this regard. 3.7 MARKET AND GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCES The ideal housing market is one in which private industry is ablc to satisfy the needs and demands of its users without the benefit of government assistance. The housing market is frequently deterred from functioning effectively, however, because of constraints imposed by government as well as those whose origin is from the private sector itself. A principal objective of the Housing Elentent is to identify those factors which inhibit the housing market from properly perforn~ing and to attempt to correct those deficiencies which are within the sphere of local influence. The production and delivery of housing is a complex process, involving several layers of government and countless private participants. It is largely because of this complexity and multiple involvement that housing costs can rarely be directly influenced solely by one segment of the housing delivery system. GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS Although there are several components of housing production which are beyond the control of local government, such as the cost and availability of mortgage capital, labor, and materials, there are key elements which are directly controlled by local government and are, thus, legitimate subjects of inquiry for a Housing Element. The most obvious and significant factors falling within the influence of local government are summarized in the following pages. Land Availability Through its planning and zoning policies and practices local government dictates how much and in what location land will be made available for residential development, the timing of land availability, and the conditions under which such land may be utilized. {See gage 27 for an inventory of vacant land by zoning density). Land Development Process Through its subdivision ordinances, and other land use controls, local government provides the franiework within which development may take place. The process established may frustrate or facilitate residential development. Depending on the location of a proposed residential development, development impact fees can range from $3,000 to $6,000 for a single family dwelling unit and from $1,500 to $3,500 far a multifamily dwelling 3-31 Drafr Nausing Element November 12,1992 unit. These fees are relatively low in comparison to those charged in mast urban communities. They do represent an added development cost which could affect the financial feasibility of some affordable housing developments, however. The County could mitigate the impact of these fees on low-income housing by reducing or deferring the fees for certain types of development or seeking state or federal subsidies that can help to defray necessary public costs for which the fees are charged. Table 3-22 shows the planning fees for the County and the zoning regulations for agriculturally and residentially zoned land in the unincorporated County. Tables 3-23 and 3-24 summarize the County's zoning regulations. Any of the 23 zones listed in Table 3-23 can be developed for housing. The regulations for each of these zones permit at least one dwelling unit per lot. In addition to the 23 zones listed in Table 3-23, there are the four residential zones, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. Table 3-24 shows the specific County regulations for these four residential zones. Butte County also imposes certain minimum standards applicable to building sites throughout the County regardless of zone. Such standards may be reduced or increased by the regulations of a particular zone by explicit regulation in the section of Article III containing regulations for that zone. Table 3-25 summarizes these standards. 3-32 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-22 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES County of Butte Activity Fee Required Appeal/EIR Requirement 50 percent of total application fee Appeal/PC'~ Decision 50 percent of total application fee Boundary Line Modification $ 250.00 Determinations {Cert. of Comp.) $ 100.00 Development Agreement $2,353.00 minimum General Plan Amend. $1,104.00 minimum Land Conservation Agreement (Inclusions) $ 250.00 Land Conservation Agreement {Withdrawal) $1,000.00 Mining PermitJRecIamation Plan $ 98$.00 minimum Parcel Map $ 543.00 minimum Pre-App Review-OPA $ 500.00 deposit min. Publication of Adopting Zoning Ordinance $ 500.00 deposit min. Rezone $1,217.00 minimum Rezone-PUD $1,172.00 minimum Specific Plan $1,153.00 minimum Subdivision Map $ 533.40 + per lot TPZ Zone $1,160.04 minimum Use Permits $ 988.00 Variance $ 588.00 Waiver $ 533.00 + per lot Impact Fees Theramlito Area Drainage Fee $ 4?5 per dwelling unit Chico Area Park Fee $1,189 per dwelling unit Sehool Fees -All Areas $ 1.58 per square foot Sheriff Fee -All Areas $ 364 per s.f. unit $ 252 per m, f, unit Street Improvements -Chico Area $1,331 per s. f. unit $ 804 per m, f, unit $ 642 per mobilehome Street Impr. - Themialito Area $ 547 per s. f. unit $ 304 per m. f. unit Note *PC refers to the Planning Commission Source: County of Butte Planning Department, effective 1990. 3-33 i Draft Housing Inlement TABLE 3-23 DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS County of Butte Source: Zone Specifics Agricultural A-2 Unincorporated areas A-5 Agricultural 5 acres min. A-10 Agricultural IO acres min. A-15 Agricultural 15 acres min. A-20 Agricultural 20 acres min. A-40 Agriculturai 40 acres min. A-160 Agricultural l 60 acres min. Agriculturai-Residential A-R Ag.-Residential *** AR-1/2 Ag.-Residential 1/2 acre min., *** AR-1 Ag.-Residential I acre min. AR-2 112 Ag.-Residential 2 I/2 acres min. AR-5 Ag.-Residential 5 acres min. AR-10 Ag.-Residential 10 acres min. Ag.-Residential-Mobilehome November 12, 1992 AR-MH Ag.-Res. Mobilehome *** AR-MH-1 Ag.-Res.-Mobilehome 1 acre min., *** AR-MH-2 112 Ag.-Res.-Mobilehome 2 112 acres min. AR-MH-3 Ag.-Res.-Mobilehome 3 acres min. AR-MH-S Ag.-Res.-Mobilehome 5 acres min. Miscellaneous A-SR Ag.-Suburban Residential 8,125 ft. min. MHP Mobilehome Park Zone l0 contiguous acres min. M-R Mountain or Recreation Subdivision-Residential 112 acre min. PUD Planned Unit Development Flexible R-MH Residential Mobilehome S00 sq.ft. home min. County of Butte Planning Department, Applications Fee Schedule, effective February 3, 1990. 3-3~ Draft Housing Elemenl TABLE 3-24 RESYDENTIAL ZONES County of Butte November .i2, ,1992 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 (a) Height {feet} Principal Comment: Must Conform to the prov isions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5. Accessory " {b) Parcel size (sq. ft.} *6,500 *6,500 *6,500 *6,500 Comer *7,000 *7,000 *7,000 *7,000 Split single-family on zero lot line (halfpiex) N/A 4,000 4,000 4,000 Comer N/A 5,000 5,000 5,000 (c) Building site area per unit (sq. ft.) with two off-street parking spaces 5,500 3,250 3,250 2,150 (d) Parcel width (feet} at setback line Interior 65 50 50 SO Comer 70 65 55 SS (e) Public street frontage Curve or cul-de-sac {ft) 40 40 40 40 (f) Front yard setback {ft} Back of property line** 20 20 20 20 Side street prop. line*'~ 20 20 20 20 (g} Side yard setback {feet) 5 S S 5 (h} Rear yard setback (feet) l5 10 5 5 (i) Distance between bldgs. on same parcel (ft) 14 10 10 10 Parking: Two off-street parking spaces per dweIIing unit are required in all residential zones. Notes: * On public sewage disposal service. AlI oilier lots to meet requirements of the Envirorunental Health Division for septic systems. ** Or edge of right-of--way on private roads. *** Site Requirements Source: The County of Butte Flanning Department, Butte County Zoning Ordinance, March 1989. 3-35 Draft Housing Lc'lemenl TABLE 3-25 GENERAL ZONING SITE REQUIREMENTS Butte County November 12, 1992 {a) Lot area or building site Minimum required lot area per dwelling unit is $,125 square feet, excepting where public sewage disposal service is provided, in which case a minimum of 6,500 square feet may be allowed for inside lots and 7,500 square feet for comer tots. {b} Lot width Minimum lot width is b5 feet. (c) Front yard Minimum front yard is 50 feet from the center line of the road, except where the road is classified by the county as a Federal Aid Secondary Road, in which case the minimum building setback requirement is 55 feet from the center Iine of said road. (d} Side and rear yards Minimum side and rear yard is five feet. Sources: Butte County Zoning Ordinance, Section 2d-33; County of Butte PIanning Department. Based on the requirements shown in Table 3-25, the maximum allowed density would be 6 dwelling units per acre in the R-I zone, 13 dwelling units per acre in the R-2 and R-3 zone, and 20 dwelling units per acre in the R~ zone. Typical densities, based on prior development, are: 4-5 dwelling units per acre in the R-I zone, 6-10 dwellings per acre in the R-2 zone, ] 1-12 dwelling units per acre in the R-3 zone, and 13-16 dwelling units per acre in the R-4 zone. With density bonuses for tow-income housing, the County COnSldefS these densities sufficient to accommodate the housing needs of all income groups. The requirement for two parking spaces per dwelling unit, while not excessive, could impose a fnancial burden on certain types of low-income multifamily housing. The County could mitigate this burden by considering reductions in required parking For senior housing and studio and one-bedroom units. These zoning densities are consistent with the General Plan land use categories shown on page 26. The R-I zone applies in the LDR general plan land use category, R-2 and R-3 in the MDR category, and R-4 in the HDR category. Localized Public Services and Facilities Concerns Many services which are pre-requisite to housing development--sewers, water, streets, electricity--are directly or indirectly controlled by local government policies and actions. Development constraints pertaining to public services and facilities in the Firhaven Creek, Paradise Reservoir and Magalia Reservoir Watersheds are as follows: A. Land Use 3-3G Draft Housing Elenrenl November 12, 1992 1. That a Watershed Protection Zone shall be overlaid onto the Magaiia Reservoir, Paradise Reservoir and Firhaven Creek Watersheds. These watersheds to not include any areas designated for higher density housing. 2. Current lot or parcel sizes in the Firhaven Creek Watershed shall be stringently maintained. No further division of lots or parcels shall be perniitted. 3. Current zoning shall be maintained within the Magaiia Reservoir, Paradise Reservoir, and Firhaven Creek Watershed other than to allow the consideration of zoning proposals to a larger minimum parcel size. 4. No change in zoning shall be made and no use permit shall be issued unless and until the individual and cumulative impact of additional sewage disposal and surface water runoff created by new development can be controlled. Until it can be proven to the approving authority by the applicants} to have no adverse effects upon the water quality of the watershed, no such zone change or use pem~it will be approved. B. Sewage Disposal 1. A 100-foot sewage disposal setback from a perennial stream, a 50-foot setback from an ephemeras strean~ or drainage way, and a 200-foot setback from a lake or a reservoir shall be strictly enforced for als lots or parcels within the Fifiaven Creek, Paradise Reservoir and Magaiia Reservoir Watersheds, regardless of the date the lot or parcel was created. C. Streets 1. Arterial and collector streets must be designed to safely accommodate traffic at a minimum speed of 35 miles per hour. 2. Cul-de-sac roads must be designed to accommodate traffic at 25 miles per hour. 3. Loop roads must be designed to accommodate traff c at 20 nines per hour. 4. A minimum 2" asphalt base is required over a 6" to 8" aggregate base. S. Roads with a slope greater than 15010 shall be paved. 6. Rights-of-way widths typically vary between 40' and 80', {60' minimum far urban subdivisions}, depending on the type of road (local. collector, arterial, etc.). Minimum paved widths vary from 26` to 40', depending on the type of street and requirements for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. 7. All private roads shall be capable of supporting a load of at least 40,000 lbs. D. Drainage 1. Enclosed stornl drainage is generally required for suburban or higher density development (R- zone or higher). 3-37 i' Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 2. The minimum storni drainage pipe dianieter~is 12". 3. Drainage pipes may becast-in-place or pre-cast concrete, vitrified clay, ribbed aluminum, asbestos composite, or non-reinforced concrete. 4. A minimum 2fps velocity if generally required. 5. Access covers shall be located at all junction points, changes in pipe size, and changes in gradient, but spaced no less than every 300' for curved sections of pipe, 400' for pipes 24" or less in diameter, and 500' for pipes of more than 24" in diameter. E. Sewer 1. Sewer lines connecting to public sewer main shall be at least b" in diameter 2. Sewer lines must be constructed of vitrified clay or cast iron, unless approved by the Public Works Director. 3. Access covers to sewer mains shall be spaced na less than 350'. 4_ Sewer mains must be a minimum of 48" in diameter. Although these requirements increase the cost of development, they are necessary for development R-1 or greater density. Most of the subdivisions in the unincorporated area developed prior to these requirements had substandard roads which required frequent resurfacing and repair, open drainage ditches which often flooded, no sewer service, and few other infrastructure improvements typically necessary for suburban or urban residential densities. The County believes that its standards represent minimal requirements for the safety of future residents. Building Regulations Through building codes and other land use requirements, local government heavily influences the style, quality, size, and costs of residential development. Restrictive regulations may adversely affect the ability of the industry to provide housing, at affordable prices, for a significant portion of the population. While the County must, by state law, adopt and implement the requirements of various uniform construction codes, as aniended by the state, Butte County attempts to apply these codes as flexibly as is possible under state law. No local amendments to these codes have been adopted. Cornrriunity Amenities Through its subdivision ordinances, land development process, and attitudes, local government determines those amenities which must be provided by the private sector in new housing developments. Parks, schools, bike lanes, and similar amenities placed on the developer of new residential development, obviously influence housing production and delivery. Frequently, the local government adds such requirements when it "negotiates" the conditions which will be required for subdivision map approval. In a survey of several residential developers operating in Buiie County, a number of factors were identifed as having an adverse impact upon the production of housing. Several facrors were perceived as 3-38 haft Housing Elen¢en1 November 12, 1992 influencing the upward spiral of housing costs. Among those cited were excessive time delays in plan checking and permit application processing; inflexible land use controls; excessive land development fees; unnecessary public facilities (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, etc.} requirements; necessary information regarding the land development process not readily available; inconsistent information frequently provided by County personnel; existing subdivision procedures which inhibit innovation; the element of uncertainty regarding whether approval to develop will be granted and sustained. While certain developers identified specific problems directly attributable to local government (such as the time involved in obtaining approval to convert one large parcel into two smaller parcels (12 months), the difficulty in obtaining approval to employ the technique of "zero-Iot line" development, and the inability to schedule inspections and to obtain building pern~its in a timely manner, other developers considered the County's land development system orderly and void of any major constraints. Within the Land Use Element of the County's General Pian, no measurable limits have been set on the availability of Iand for residential development. Until the County revises this policy, and sets tighter restrictions on the amount of land to be developed For housing, government land use controls will not be a greatly limiting factor. The most substantial problem is, instead, the need for extension of sewer lines and utilities. At this time, huge tracts of developable land are available for residences, yet suitability is limited by the lack of public facilities in place. Property tax was a governmental factor that seriously affected housing costs prior to the passage of Proposition 13. Before the passage of this measure in June 1978, property taxes represented 20-35 percent of monthly housing costs in many situations. Reduction of property taxes due to Proposition 13 was expected to reduce housing costs by as much as 17 percent for the average Butte County homeowner. By effectively reducing housing costs, Proposition 13 was expected to enable additional prospective home buyers with lower household incomes to qualify for the purchase of a home. However, because of increases in the cast of single-family' homes in Butte County, and throughout the state, the purchase of a first home is still limited to higher-income families. Proposition 13 may have been a greater influence, however, in allowing fanjilies already awning homes to reduce their housing costs. In addition, the percentage of retired persons living on fixed incomes and overpaying for housing expenses may have been reduced. Asa °general Iaw" County, Butte County is required to operate pursuant to the mandates of the State of California with respect to its land use controls, development processing, and pern~it requirements. Each of the 5tate'S statutory and regulatory mandates is impicmented by the County through ordinances, resolutions, and other procedures adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Butte County's development processing requirements represent the minimum standards mandated by the state; they impose no extraordinary requirements or procedures, such as those commonly associated with local growth management strategies. Therefore, any efforts to significantly modify tyre substance of the County's development review and approval process will likely necessitate modification of the underlying state mandates. A detailed discussion of the major components of the land use regulatory system mandated by the state, including time requirements and fees imposed by the County, is provided below. 3-39 t~7raf7 Housing Element November I2, I992 Environmental Review Mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, each local agency with discretionary authority over a project must evaluate the environments! impacts of that project prior to its approval. Butte County's CEQA review is administered by the Planning Department, operating under the County's procedures. The PIanning Department estimates that approximately SS percent of all projects will not result in significant environmental impacts and are, thus, processed with "Negative Declarations". E1R's are required For the balance of projects reviewed by the County. The review process is comprehensive and many variables, including project size, type, and location affect the outcome of the initial study phase and determination of the next step. On an average, it takes approximately six weeks to prepare, review, and respond to comments on a Negative Declaration. In contrast, the same functions take six to seven months to accomplish for a project with an EIR. While these time frames are well within the deadlines required by state law, more expeditious environmental review could certainty heap reduce time-related development costs. Much of time involved in completing a Negative Declaration or an EIR is related to state required public notice, comment, and hearing periods. Because of the public notice and comment periods required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the minimum reasonable time in which a Negative Declaration could be completed is two to three weeks for a simple project, and three to four weeks for a more complex project. In addition to the time required for actually completing the checklist, CEQA requires a 30-day public comment period after a Negative Declaration has been prepared and before it can become final. State law also requires public notices, comment periods, written responses to comments, and findings before an EIR can be adapted. Given these procedural requirements, the minimum reasonable time for the adoption of a final EIR for a relatively straightforward project would be about four or five months, and far a complex project six or seven months. These minimum times assume that there is no public controversy, no initially undiscovered facts that must subsequently be researched, and that other responsible agencies are expeditious in providing their comments. Given the complexities of environmental review under CEQA, the County ~daes not believe that its average time for completing environmental reviews is excessive. There are opportunities to expedite environmental review however. These include: 1. using modem data retrieval methods made available with computer technology; 2, placing greater emphasis on and improving the level of analysis contained in E1Rs prepared on area-wide projects, such as General Plan Amendments, so that consistent zoning and/or development projects can more efficiently be evaluated in light of these EIRs; and 3. aggressively sticking to minimum-requires state deadlines For review by responsible agencies and the public. The application of computer technology to the information collection and analysis phase of the environmental review function would require additional funding from the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Department is currently placing greater emphasis on area-wide EIRs as they are being prepared in conjunction with the more detailed area plans and rezonings in the County. It should be noted that 3-40 Draft Nousirrg Element November I2, 1992 localities seeking to minimize public review and comments periods are often subject to subsequent legal challenge, which further delays the development process. Such challenges of local environmental review processes are based on the assumption that a longer time period for public review equates to greater quality of the final EIR. General Plan and Zoning The legislature initially mandated local General Plans in 1955. The legislature and courts have required that local governments act in a manner "consistent" with the General Plan when approving subdivisions and in the application and administration of zoning. Despite this new relationship between zoning and General Plans, they differ in several significant ways. A General Plan is comprehensive, dealing with many facets, including land use, housing, circulation, and the environment. It is long range, addressing a desirable future. It is general, containing categories of land uses, ranges of intensity, policies for environmental quality, services, protection from natural hazards, and housing. Zoning is specific, precise, and affects the immediate use of land. The origins of the County's prior General Plan are found in the 1971 General Plan, supplemented by various revisions and Element additions in 1973, 1974 and 1977. 1n 1979, the County adopted the present Land Use Element, which consists of a policy plan and county-wide map. Area Land Use Maps which predated the consistency requirements are being systematically updated to reflect the policies in the 1979 Land Use Element. To date, four planning areas have been completed, including: Gridley-Biggs 1981 Paradise 1981 ChIC0 1982 Oroville 1984 Amendment of the General Pian can be initiated by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, or by private application. Depending upon the environmental review conclusion, it takes approximately 10-12 weeks to amend the General Plan with a Negative Declaration and six to seven months with an EIR. As a practical matter, it may take considerably longer for final approval due to the four annual amendments prescribed in the Govemn~ent Code. The County attempts to spread these amendment cycles more evenly throughout the year so as to minimize the delays while awaiting an appropriate time for an amendment. Zoning--the regulation of the use, height, bulk, lot size, and development standards applicable to private and, to some extent, governmental lands--is adopted by ordinance. CodiFied in 1976, Butte County's zoning ordinance contains 54 principal zones ranging from the A-2, a general zone, through the typical residential, commercial, industrial zones, and including specialized zones for the timber preserve. The County's major zoning thrust has been to eliminate the general A-2 zone in favor of a more precise zoning, since its broad range of available uses are insuff cient to be considered consistent with the County's General Plan. Since 1980, R-3 and R-4 zoning have been revised so that densities are consistent with the General Plan. A review of the County's zoning ordinance reveals several zones which are virtually identical and might be consolidated to reduce verbiage and increase the pubIic's understanding of its contents. The PUD (Planned Unit Development} zone is the County's flexible zoning mechanism 3-41 Draft Housing ~'lement November 12, 1992 intended to cover the non-traditional types of development. A review and broadening of this zone was completed in 1984. Stability, predictability, and ready understanding are the key elements of a positive planning approach to housing. In this regard, the steps described below would assist in achieving these objectives: l} Review and revise the zoning ordinance to consolidate, streamline, and simplify its language (in process}; 2) Revise the flexible zoning procedures so as to encourage a greater utilization of all basic uses, including mixed uses (perhaps incorporating flexible development approvals by the Planning Commission in lieu of, or as an alternative to, the two step PUD approval). Land Developrent -Subdivision The process of dividing land into saleable building sites is established by the Map Act, which, as implemented thraugh County ordinances, provides the means to achieve legal land divisions and the physical improvements to insure the proper utilization of the site. The subdivision process also provides the framework for adjusting parcel sizes to the physical circumstances and assisting in the provisions of water and waste disposal. Working in conjunction with zoning, the subdivision process can implement land use policy as it relates to density and intensity of use; the County's subdivision ordinance, supplemented by various resolutions affecting design standards and other requirements, establishes the basic procedural requirements. There are two basic subdivision types: the parcel map for those divisions creating four or fewer parcels and the tentative-final map for those divisions creating fve or more parcels. Butte County employs an Advisory Agency composed of representatives from Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Health. Other departments associated with the review and approval of subdivisions submit comments to the Advisory Agency. The Advisory Agency approves or disapproves, and recommends appropriate conditions For, subdivision applications in compliance with the County's ordinances and resolutions. The Planning Department's role is to detem~ine consistency with the General Plan, as required by state law. The Land Development Section of the Public Works Department is responsible for the application, distribution, review, and overall processing of subdivisions. Environmental Health notifies the Land Development Section of Public Works so that they have sufficient information to take action. Once the environmental review is completed, it takes approximately three weeks to obtain a decision on the tentative map from the Advisory Agency. The time between tentative approval and final approval is largely determined by the subdivider, who can either complete the conditions or bond for their completion. Typically, it takes about nine months between tentative and final approval for parcel maps and 18 months for a frnal map. Decisions of the Advisory Agency are appealable to the Board of Supervisors. The subdivision process has been the subject of a citizens committee's review to suggest various means of improving the process; their recommendations involve the creation of a land development coordinator to shepherd projects through the system, and the merger of the Planning and Environmental Review Departments, which was accomplished in ]uly of 1981. The time required for subdivision review could be further reduced in environmental review were conducted concurrenEly, to the extent practical, with the review of a tentative map. 3-4? Draft Nousing Element November 12, 1992 Subdivision Standards The County's improvement requirement for subdivisions are minimal. There are no requirements for dedicating land for parks (as allowed by the State under the "Quimby Act"), no requirements for dedicating land for schools (although the school district does require the payment of a school fee), and no off-site improvement requirements. Requirements far water and sewer lines in communities served by public systems are established by the service requirements of those agencies. The only substantive requirements imposed by the County are street improvement requirements and drainage improvement requirements in areas without adequate drainage facilities. Street widths required by the County are standard widths recommended by road engineers: Urban Collector 40-foot paved right-of--way, plus 10 feet on both sides for sidewalk and planting strip Urban Local Street 3b-foot paved right-of way, plus l0 feet on both sides for sidewalk and planting strip Rural Collector 2fi-foot paved right-of--way, plus 4-foot drainage swaie on each side Rural Local Street 20-foot paved right-of--way, plus 2-foot drainage Swale an each side As a way of reducing the costs of street improvemen[s, the County could consider reductions in urban street widths far planned developments which incorporate traffic circulation and parking patterns that mitigate the need for wider streets. Local Agency Formation Commission The Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo, is responsible for the coordination and approval of the organizational changes of cities and special districts. LAFCo must act favorably on all annexation, detachments, formations, incorporation, consolidations, dissolutions, and minor boundary changes prior to their enactment by either the originating body or the Board of Supervisors. Provided with a staff of two, Butte County's LAFCo is structured broadly within the Butte County Planning program and organization. Time requirements for processing vary considerably, although once the environmental review phase is complete, it generally takes about one month to begin consideration by the LAFCo Board, which is composed of members representing the cities, special district and County. The County is presently evaluation changes to the LAFCo organization. Environmental Health Technically, the Environmental Health Division is a part of the Butte County Health Department. The Environmental Health Division is responsible for, among other things, the health aspects of water supply and waste disposal. As a result, this department has an important role in the planning development process, particularly in the unincorporated area, which relies heavily on on-site water and waste disposal methods. Unlike other departmental relationships to the applicant or developer, Environmental Health is highly interactive, requiring various on-site and additional involvement, depending on the circumstances of the property. Environmental Health participates in the review of all rezonings, General Plan amendments, Use 3-~3 ~ .. Draft Nausin~ Element November 12, 1992 Permits, etc., but is most directly involved in subdivision approvals and the approval of individual waste disposal systems. The Environmental Health Division's review of subdivisions take place during the time frame of the Land Development Section's review and is not in addition to this requirement. Given the importance of a healthy and safe means of water supply and waste disposal, not only to the eventual users of the property, but to the community as well, this aspect of the development review process is essential. Little change, short of either elimination of this mandated review of the provision of sewers, can be substituted. An environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and a review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently required before a pern~it can be issued when the effluent from a project is expected to exceed 2,500 gallons per day or involves six or mare dwelling units. The process provides the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board with an opportunity to review and comment on and/or set discharge requirements, if necessary. Since the Environmental Health Division employs only those standards contained in Appendix 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board Guidelines in the review and approval of such permits, the County exercises virtually no discretionary judgment over a project which is otherwise perniitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In the last year, however, comments from Environmental Health on sewerage requirements have become increasingly important in the decision-making process of the Planning Commission, partly as a result of the nitrate study prepared by the State Water Quality Control Board. The study indicates septic systems are the primary source of nitrate pollution in Chico_ Based on the information in the report, Environmental Health might not recommend approval of a development on septic tanks otherwise allowed by the General Plan. There are two resolutions to this problem: 1) To undertake a comprehensive mapping program of groundwater levels, septic capabilities, and water quality. This data could then be more accurately reflected in the General Plan, or 2) Prepare a capital improvements plan for sewer and water main extension and tie to zoning and General Plan. Either solution requires substantial funding and support from the Board of Supervisors. MARKET GONSTRATNTS As expressed earlier, housing involves many interests, any. one of which can effectively slow or stop production. Frequently, the market creates its own impediments. In such instances, there is generally little that local government can do to correct market imperfections, such as labor-management difficulties, poor contractor/sut~contractor relationships, or materials shortages caused by trade disputes. In other instances, market impediments are caused by state or federal agencies, but cannot be alleviated by local government. For example, federal monetary policy will directly affect the supply and cost of mortgage capital; and state energy policies will directly affect the supply of and demand for insulation. Yet, Butte County cannot counter these policies when their irt~pacts become adverse to the local housing market. 3-44 Draft Housing Elen:ent November 12, 1992 There is much public concern about the rapid escalation of housing prices. While goveznment regulations contribute, to an extent, to this upward spiral, as do the forces of inflation, an often overlooked reality is the influence of the market itself -- buyers and sellers -- upon housing prices. Far example, the second- time home purchaser repeatedly rejects "basic" houses, preferring instead the dwelling with substantial amenities and other extras. The seller of an existing house artificially inflates the sales price to make a profit or to capture the equity that has occurred through value appreciation and wonders why housing prices are so high when that seller re-enters the housing market as a purchaser. This fom~ of speculation triggers inflation in the new house market. In effect, the seller (or consumer} frequently creates, in a direct fashion, the problem about which he/she complains in the housing market. Another market constraint is the host of fees and costs incurred as part of the sales transaction. Title insurance, closing costs, points, prepayment penalties, and real estate sales commission (typically {%} are all generally built into the sales price. These costs which may represent as much as 10 percent of the sales price, contribute significantly to increased housing prices. Each time a specific dwelling is sold, these costs must be borne. Financing Costs A major constraint to the development of pausing are federally inspired higher interest rates. Their disastrous effect was reflected in the lack of construction alacrity in 1980-1983. An important consideration in the assessment of housing needs in Butte County is the availability of fmancing. During the 1991-92 recession, homebuilders throughout the state have experienced greater difficulty in obtaining financing for their development projects. This is a consequence of the failure and consolidation of many savings institutions and commercial banks, traditional sources of development capital, tighter federal banking controls, and more conservative lending practices on the part of solvent banks and savings institutions. Butte County has little ability to increase the availability of capital for development, except by assisting builders of low- and moderate-income housing in applying for state and federal loan programs. Even as capital for development projects has dwindled, money for home loans has become more readily available with the reduction in interest rates. Based an discussions with local lenders, the County has not been able to identify any communities in the unincorporated county area that do not have adequate access to lenders for home loans. The only exceptions would be areas of the county without adequate flood control or fire protection. Homes in these areas would have a difficult time procuring insurance, a condition of most home loans, but would represent a small segment of the overall housing market. Low-income homeowners would likely experience diflcuIty in qualifying for private financing for home improvement loans since their incomes could not, in most cases, support fully amortized loan payments at current market interest rates. This problem could be resolved through programs that offer deferred or low-interest-rate Most private lenders require some type of governmental participation in such programs, however, to reduce lending risks and to assure an adequate rate of return. Table 3-2b illustrates the effect of various interest rates on different loan values. 3-45 i. Draft Housing Elemenl L November 12, 1992 TABLE 3-26 THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES ON THE COST OF A HOME LOAN* Loan Amount 8% 9% 18% li% 12% $ 60,000 $440 $483 $527 $571 $ti17 $ 80,000 $587 $644 $702 $762 $803 $100,000 $734 $804 $878 $952 $1,028 $120,000 $880 $961 51,053 $1,143 $1,234 $150,OOD $1,1DD $1.207 $1,31b $1,428 $1,543 $200,000 $1,467 $1,609 $i,75S $1,905 $2,057 *Assumes a 30-year, fixed rate marigage. Source: Connerly & Associates, Inc, I99I. Table 3-27 combines the ]ncame Limits as stated by the California Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1992, and the respective affordability possible by household size. Househol d affordability, as mentioned below, is based on 34 percent of monthly household income. TABLE 3-27 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY TABLE* Incamc Level and Monthly Payment Household Size Very Law- Low- Median- Moderate- One $11,050 $17,650 $22,050 $26,450 $275 $440 $550 $660 Two 12,600 20,150 25,200 30,240 315 505 630 750 Three 14,L50 22,700 28,400 34,100 355 570 710 850 Pour 15,750 25,200 31,500 37,$00 395 630 790 945 Five 17.000 27,200 34,000 40,800 435 680 850 1,020 Six 18,250 29,250 36,550 43,850 455 730 91S 1,095 Seven 19,550 31,250 39,050 46,850 490 780 975 1,170 Eight 20,800 33,250 41,550 49,850 520 830 1,040 1,245 Nate: * Affordable housing payment based on 30 percent of monthly household income. Source: Connerly & Associates, Inc., 1991. 3-46 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Land and Construction Costs Residentially-designated land sells for between $5,000 per acre for land without any infrastructure in the greater Oroville area, to as much as $75,000 per acre for development-ready land near Chico with utility connections. In between these extremes is land that sells for $15,000 to $30,040 per acre (without infrastructure), and land in near Paradise which sells for $20,000 to $50,000 per acre {but can probably only be developed only at two units per acre or less because of the Iack of a public sewer system}. Constriction costs in Butte County for standard quality residential construction would range from $60 to $75 per square foot (including all development fees), depending on the amenities. Given these development costs far renial housing, densities of 12 units per acre or more would probably be suffcient to provide moderate-income rental housing at market rate. Rents for apartments at densities of 12 to 20 units per acre would probably range from $475 to $750 for one to three bedroom units, depending on interest rates and private loan terms. Even at higher densities, 20 units per acre or more, market-rate low-income housing could probably not be constructed without substantial construction cast and financing cast savings and tax incentives. Beyond approximately 20 units per acre, increasing residential density does not appear to substantially impact housing affordability for low-income households. 3.8 HOUSING NEEDS This section describes housing production needs in the County, housing rehabilitation needs, land needs for new residential development, and the need for housing affordable to low-income households. The Butte County Regional Housing Allocation PIan, which forn~s the basis for the determination of the County's share of the regional housing needs in the unincorporated area, serves as the foundation of much of the information presented in this section. Appendix A is a listing of the housing assistance programs operating in the County of Butte. IDENTIFICATION OF HOUSING NEEDS IN UNINCORPORATED BUTTE COUNTY With a base of data on population, households, and housing characteristics as a foundation, the task of the Housing Element is to translate this data into estimates of the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This is done in the following section, which outlines basic housing needs for new construction and rehabilitation. Land requirements for residential development and the need for assisted housing are also discussed, and special housing needs of various segments of the community are analyzed. PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH The California Department of Housing and Community Development has projected an increase of 9,866 households in Butte County between January 1991 and .Tiny 1997. To assure adequate vacancies and to replace dilapidated housing, the Department estimates that the cities and the County should plan for 12,165 additional dwelling units during this time frame. The Butte County Association of Governments adopted a Regional Housing Allocation Plan on lone l7, 1992 which assigned 5,131 additional dwelling units to Butte County as its share of the region's housing needs in the unincorporated area between 1991 and 1997. Of these additional dwelling units, the plan recommends that 1,702 (33%) be affordable to very low-income households, that 970 (19%) be affordable 3-47 l Draft Housing ~'iemenl November 12, 1992 to law-income households, that 970 (19%} be affordable to moderate-income households, and that the remaining 1,489 dwelling units (29%) be affordable to above moderate-income dwelling units. VACANCY FACTORS The housing market requires a certain degree of elasticity to ensure that a choice of housing oppommities is available at different locations, prices, and types. Although conventional wisdom holds that an overall vacancy factor of 5-6 percent is desirable, it is the conclusion of this Element that the desired vacancy factor should be relevant to the local housing market. (See Regional Housing Needs Assessment, appended to this chapter.} In this regard, the Butte County housing market is a very stable one, with a relative minimum of movement, except for the Chico urban area. A six percent vacancy rate in such a market could be potentially damaging to the real estate industry and to the local economy. Therefore, the following factors are considered acceptable in temps of "supply and demand": Unit Type Acceptable Vacancy Single-Family Dwellings 2 percent Multifamily Dwellings 5 percent The "acceptable" vacancy rate has to be related to the relative proportion of owner-occupied and rental units comprising the Butte County housing market. The "overall acceptable vacancy rate" is determined by calculating the relative percentage ofowner-occupied and rental units. In unincorporated Butte County, 63.8 percent of all housing units are owner-occupied, and 36.2 percent are rental units. When these percentages are weighted and added, they represent the overall acceptable vacancy rate. (.638 x .02) + {.362 x .OS) = .03 or three percent. Although three percent would be an acceptable vacancy rate for dwelling units available for occupancy, the new construction goal assigned to Butte County jurisdictions by the Department of Housing and Community Development includes a factor for other vacant units, past deficiencies in vacancies, and the replacement of dilapidated dwelling units. The difference between the number of households and the needed number of new dwelling units is much greater than three percent, therefore. PRODUCTION GOALS {NEW CONSTRUCTION) The basic housing needs identified above represent that number of units determined needed to accommodate existing and anticipated population, a reasonable rate of vacancy, and replacement housing. It is useful to the private homebuilding industry and to public decision-makers that the Housing Element translate basic housing needs into production goals or "targets". This process requires an analysis of data previously outlined, as well as the use of information regarding the extent of hauling dilapidation and the rate of removal of housing units projected for the period far which goals are to be established. The unincorporated area housing inventory contains an estimated 4,300 units considered to be in need of rehabilitation, including units in need of immediate repair and units with deferred maintenance that could require substantial repair over the next several years. In addition, one percent of the total inventory (430 units} is conservatively estimated to be substandard to a degree warranting demolition and clearance (these are "dilapidated" units). 3-48 Draft Housing Eleneent November 12, 1992 These percentages are minimum estimates only, based on the 1975 Special Census and subsequent housing conditions surveys. For the purpose of formulating the production goals established herein, it is assumed that the present rate of deterioration of the housing will continue. It is also important to note that a very substantial number of households occupy units that are seriously deteriorated. Although the extent of deterioration may not be to a degree warranting demolition, the condition is serious enough to make the inclusion of such units in the inventory a questionable judgment. Nonetheless, those units have been included with the understanding that failure Co promptly rehabilitate these units will increase the proportion of dilapidation. A camgarison of the housing unit count in the unincorporated County in 1975 (25,863 units) and in 1983 (36,927 units) indicated an average of 1,383 housing units have been added annually since 1975. Between 1977 and 1980, however, production was closer to 2,000 units per year. Between 1980 and 1983, the average dropped to 995 units annually. In the time since the adoption of the 1984 County of Butte Housing Element, the number of units constructed has been somewhat lower than the expected net average of 1,383 units a year. The Butte County Building Departrrlent has approved an average of 939 residential building permits a year during the last 6 years 1985-1990. Most of the permits issued (98.2%) during the six year span have been for either single-family residence or mobilehonme sites. Building pernmit requests declined by another 33% in 1991, reaching just 612 dweIling units in the unincorporated county area. To meet is share of the region's housing needs through July 1997, the requests far approximately 790 dwelling units per year would need to be approved by the County. TABLE 3-28 DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 1985-1990 Year and ltuilding i'ermits issued Unit 'T'ype 1985 198G 1487 E988 1989 1990 Mobilehomes 246 245 252 271 243 249 Single Fatuity 48] 524 737 758 77.1 751 Duplexes 4 11 34 4 3 6 Triplexes 3 ! 8 1 i i Fourplexes 2 1 --- 13 i 1 Five+ --- 2 --- 6 --- 1 Total Permits 73G 784 1,031 1,053 1,019 1,009 Total Single Family* 727 769 989 1,029 1,014 i,000 Total Apartments** 2 47 92 105 i3 25 Total Untls 7SZ 81G 1,081 1,134 1,027 1,025 * Total including single-family and mobilehome units. *" Total including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and Five+ multifamily uuiu. Source: County of Butte Planning Department, 1990. According to the Butte County Planning Department, the actual nummber of dwelling units groduced in the unincorporated area was lower than the County's 1984 regional share for two primary reasons. First, some of the County's "share" of ]mousing development occurred through mutual agreement between the County 3-49 Draft Housing Efemenl November 12, 1992 and the cities to annex land for development, and, second, many of the unincorporated communities not within the service range of existing city or county sewer and water systems have limited capacity for housing development other than single-fancily homes. REHABILITATYON NEEDS As mentioned earlier, it is estimated that at Ieast ten percent of the County's housing stock in the unincorporated area is considered substandard and capable of rehabilitation. The rate of rehabilitation of these units is dependent upon many factors, such as the willingness of institutional lenders to make home improvement loans, especially in the lower-income neighborhoods where the bulk of the substandard units are concentrated, and the availability of Ielow-market interest rate financing for those households who require assistance to make rehabilitation financially feasible. NEED FOR ASSISTED HOUSING AND LOWER-INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES In the distribution of regional housing needs, both household growth and the distribution of households by income group are estimated for the unincorporated County through 1990. These estimates are shown in Table 3-29, which indicates that 52 percent of the projected housing need in the unincorporated area between 1991 and 1997 is for low-income housing. TABLE 3-29 UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS PROJECTIONS Butte County Income Category as a Percentage of the County Median Year Total 0 to SO% SO to 120% 120% and above 1984 31,579 12,639 6,390 12,550 1985 35,720 15,720 7,145 12,855 1990 38,384 14,870 5,894 17,620 1997 {proj)* 43,515 17,542 6,864 19,109 * Projection assumes that the unincorporated county area can accommodate its share of the county-wide growth as allocated in the BCAG "Regional Housing Allocation Plan", June 17, 1992. Sources: California Department of Finance, U. S. Census Bureau, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Butte County Association of Governments. New Construction of Affordable Housing As reported previously in this chapter, much of the household growth in Butte County has been due to immigration. Retired households moving to Butte County from more metropolitan areas of the state have accounted for much of the past population growth. Housing construction in many areas of the County has been aimed at this segment of the population. In many cases, households moving to Butte County have had large equities from previous homes and can afford higher priced housing. 3-50 Draft Housing ,dement November 12, 1992 As the cast of housing and the cost of financing a home purchase increases, the demand for higher priced housing will decrease. Fewer households will be purchasing new housing for the sake of "moving up" in their lifestyle and housing form. Financing costs will simply make "moving up" too vastly. Therefore, the residential development industry will be retargetting their product to households who still have a motivation to purchase housing: these households are the first-time home buyers. Housing affordable to first-time home buyers must be much less costly than the luxury home. With construction, land, and financing costs on the increase, the only way to build more affordable housing is to create a smaller product, both in terms of square footage and lot size, with fewer amenities. The County's policy will be to facilitate this type of housing construction. In targeting housing construction to first-time home buyers, more households will be leaving rental housing, thus increasing its availability to other lower-income households. Thus, the filtering process will be stimulated to create more elasticity in the lower-priced segment of the housing market. The County will feature a variety of incentives, in ternls of increased residential land use densities and decreased minimum lot sizes, to enable housing production for first-time home buyers. This type of production will be encouraged on a voluntary basis. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS In addition to the new construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and assisted housing needs outlined above for the entire unincorporated area, certain population groups, housing fornis, and locations within the County require additional consideration in developing a scheme far the provision of safe and affordable housing. Female-Headed Households Twelve percent of County households are headed by females. Characteristically, these same households tend to be three times more likely than other households to be living on incomes that are below poverty levels. Single females raising children are doubly taxed with the responsibilities of family rearing and income earning. Female-headed households more often than not end up over-paying for suitable hauling. The most obvious need among single mothers is for low-cast, fancily housing. In addition to assisted housing, female heads of households could benefit from housing arrangements which provide adequate and easily supervised recreational facilities for children. Opportunities for private or cooperative child care which is connected to the housing site are also needed. At present, there are no particular housing services or housing developments targeted specifically far single mothers in the unincorporated vaunty area. EIderly Households Butte County is increasingly becoming an attractive community for retirement living. Especially in the Town of Paradise, older persons are attracted to the rural setting and are relocating here after leaving their life-long employment. The median age in the Town of Paradise is 50.4 years for women and 4i 1/2 far men, compared to the County median of 32.3 for women and 31 for all persons. Nearly one-half (44%) of the households in Paradise are low- and moderate-income. Many of these households, although living on limited fixed incomes from Social Security, or private pensions, may have substantial savings or equity in their homes. 3-S l 13raJ3 lYousing Elenreru NovemBer 12, 1992 This, in many cases, has allowed a cash purchase of retirement housing in the Paradise area, thus reducing monthly housing expenses. Owner-occupied mobilehomes are particularly popular in this area. In 1977, 35 percent of all mobilehomes added to the County between 1975 and 1977, 50 percent were in Paradise. (3) Since the incorporation of Paradise, Butte County no longer keeps permit records within the City. The area around Oroville is also an attractive location for retired persons. This area also has a median age that is higher than the County's (34} and in the past has had a high rate of increase in mobilehome permits. According to the 1990 Census, 82 percent of elderly householders are homeowners. Most of these homeowners do not have immediaie housing needs requiring a special governmental response. There are two exceptions, however: low-income elderly homeowners who may not have sufficient income to properly maintain their homes and elderly homeowners who are no longer able to live independenfly in their own home. The fornrer may need financial assistance for housing rehabilitation, while the latter may need to move an assisted living situation for older adults. The 1990 Census also reported 3,782 elderly adults living alone, 55 percent of the 5,878 householders 65 years of age or more. While older persons moving into Butte County may be predominantly healthy and economically independent at the time of their relocation, as this population ages the need for support will increase. Older persons living in mobilehome parks gain the benefit of home ownership and of living in an adult community. However, in a sense, they are also renters and are subject to rent increases for space in their mobilehome parks. A County-sponsored opportunity for cooperative ownership of mobilehome parks may be particularly beneficial in preserving the economic independence of older residents residing in mobilehomes. In addition, as older residents age and experience a reduction in physical capacity, regardless of their economic status, they will require increased supportive services as a part of their living environment. Such support includes recreational opportunities, home delivered nursing and nutritional services, transportation, housekeeping assistance, legal advocacy, etc. Services to the elderly are many times most conveniently delivered through a congregate housing site, such as a mobilehome park. The County believes that attention to this future need of services for elderly residents must be considered as a component of a decent home and a suitable living environment for older persons. Planning for the provision of such services in areas of high concentration of elderly persons is appropriate as a consideration in housing needs. According to the Butte County Community Action Agency, elderly housing assistance is provided through special circumstances grants to elderly homeowners, discounted utility rates to low-income elderly households, property tax exemptions to low-income elderly homeowners, and county-wide housing assistance programs (CDBG, Section 8). There are several government-subsidized rental housing developments with units designated specifically for elderly residents, but none of these are located within the unincorporated area. Farm Workers Information on farm workers within Butte County is limited: no one agency within the County works with this population group as a whole. Limited inforniation is available, however, from the Butte County 3-52 Drafr Housing Elemenl November 12, 1992 Housing Authority, the Economic Opportunity Council, and the State Employment Development Department. The 1990 Census reported 4,346 individuals employed in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, of which 3,0521ived in the unincorporated area. The Employment Development Department projects an increase of about 300 jobs in agriculture between 1990 and 1997. Farm workers are primarily concentrated in the unincorporated area around Gridley. The Butte County Housing Authority owns and operates 130 two- and three-bedroom fame labor units in this area. To be eligible to live in this project, at least 51 percent of the family's income must be from farm labor. Rental rates in 1984 were $125 and $145. Rental rates in 1990 average $212 per month. Currently all of the 129 units are rented. In 1984, only 89 percent of the farm labor hauling units were rented out, a vacancy rate of 11 percent. Butte County Housing Authority attributed the abnomlally high vacancy rate in 1984 to two factors: 1. General lack of farm work. 2. Success of the "self-help" program. Residents are encouraged to build their own homes and are given technical assistance. The main problem with these units is overcrowding. Average family size is 6 to 8 persons, yet most of the units are two bedrooms. It is difficult to estimate the total number of fame worker families eligible for housing assistance. Wages for driving farm equipment or for picking orchard crops may average $4 per hour. Work is limited, however, by the very seasonal nature of agriculture and by mechanization of agricultural planting and harvesting. Earnings of $4 per hour cannot, therefore, be considered as full-time wages. According to the Economic Opportunity Council in Butte County, an increasing number of farm workers are becoming permanent residents of the County, and they are looking for other forms of work to support their families. There is a belief that because farm labor opportunities are decreasing, due to mechanization, other trades and professions should be found for children in fama worker families. The Butte County Housing Authority farm labor housing project can only accept residents who are working in farm labor. Those that are unemployed, or working in other industries, are ineligible. Their need is the same as other very low-income faniilies, except that in many cases they carry the additional difficulties of having large families and of speaking Spanish only in a County where bilingual residents and service workers are sparse. Many farm workers still follow crops around the country, and, according to the EOC, housing shortage is still a problem, especially in the summer season. (6} More fame labor housing units could definitely be used. Physically Disabled According to the California Disability Survey, completed in 1978, there are approximately 28,000 disabled persons within Butte County. "Disabled", for purposes of the survey, is defined as anyone having a work or housework disability of a physical, mental, or emotional nature. Currently, the California Rehabilitation Department estimates 10 percent (or 16,000} of the population has disabilities. In contrast, the 1990 Census reported that 24,268 persons (I3 percent of the county population) considered themselves to have mobility or self-care limitations. Of this total, 44 percent were persons 65 years of age or mare. In the unincorporated county area, 17.591 persons considered themselves disabled to have mobility or self-care limitations. 3-53 Draft Housing ,dement November 11, 1991 Because the Census was not specific on the type of mobility or self-care limitation, it is impossible to know what proportion of those individuals who characterized themselves as mobility impaired would require special housing design to accommodate their physical needs. Many persons within this disabled population have a physical disorder serious enough to require special modifications to the housing environment. Such modifications generally fulfill special accessibility requirements of the disabled who use wheelchairs or walking aids. Special features which may be required include adequate ramps in entry ways, larger hall widths and doorways, removal of steps within living quarters, grab bars in bathrooms, etc. Living environments requiring accessibility features include two types: disabled persons either reside in a group or institutional settings or in their own homes in the community where they receive support necessary to maintain an independent lifestyle. Housing programs to meet the needs of handicapped and developmentally disabled persons must address physical accessibility issues, therefore, and social service issues related to group home and institutional environments. TI3e County would need to ensure that its regulatory process is flexible enough to allow group homes, congregate care facilities, and perhaps small institutions in appropriate residential enviranments. In recent years, federal accessibility standards for multifamily housing constructed for the disabled and the elderly have become more clearly defined and are generally enforced. Localities must match this federal policy through several avenues: building requirements that guarantee accessibility to the handicapped must be enforced locally; programs that modify existing housing for the handicapped must be available; and the supply of specially designed and modified housing must be adequate to meet the demand for handicapped-accessible units. Housing assistance available to persons with mobility impairments include: 27 after-care certificates Pram the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which allow handicapped Iow-income persons to transition from medical-care facilities to independent housing; • Section 8 Vouchers far Iow-income handicapped individuals: • Special circumstances grants and CDBG loans for handicapped homeowners to add accessibility features; and • Special circumstances grants to assist low-income handicapped individuals for the initial costs of rental housing (first and last month's rent, security deposit, etc.). Mobilehomes Because mobilehomes are the fastest growing form of housing in Butte County, they deserve additional analysis to determine their suitability in meeting the housing needs within the County. The high growth rate in mobilehomes indicates that they are either an adequate substitution for more conventional types of housing, or that for certain population groups they perhaps offer special housing services beyond those of more conventional housing. The I977-78 study of mobilehomes in California, conducted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, provides an opportunity to examine the attraction of this growing housing form 3-5~ Draft Housing ~'lement November 12, 1992 in a larger context. Although the popularity of mabilehomes is increasing statewide, they account for only 4.S percent of the state housing stock, as compared Eo 22.4 percent in unincorporated Butte County. From 1980-1983, mobilehome permits accounted for 35 percent of the growth in the unincorporated County. Because unincorporated rural areas tend to offer a more hospitable legal environment for mobilehomes, growth is greatest in these areas throughout the state. The state study indicates that the attractions of mobilehome living include "more economical" (listed by 64 percent of all mobilehome owners interviewed), "less maintenance" (52%), and the "desire to own", rather than to rent (34%). As in Butte County, mobilehome owners statewide tend to be older, with G4 percent of those surveyed 60 years of age or alder. Statewide, the average household size of mobilehome dwellers is two persons, and the median income is $10,200, compared to the median for all households of $15,000. -Fifty-four percent of those interviewed listed their previous residence as a conventional single-family home. Satisfaction seems to be high among mobilehome residents, with 7l percent indicating that they were "extremely" or "very" satis0ed. (8) Figures on mobilehomes are now included in the census. As of 1980, 8,238 or 13.55 percent of all year-round housing units were mobilehomes. In 1980, mobilehomes accounted far 25.0 percent, or 9,594 units, of all housing units in the unincorporated County, and mobilehomes accounted for 17.4 percent (12,494 units) of all housing units in the total County. A further analysis of the cost of purchasing a mobilehome indicates that they are only a viable alternative for a certain type of low-income household: generally those with large enough savings or equity in a previous house to make a cash purchase of the mobilchome (e.g. many retired persons). Although opportunities for financing of mobilehomes have increased in recent years, interest rates are generally higher and loan terms are shorter [han conventional mor[gages. Housing payments, when added to space rentals (median space rental is $1I0 per month statewide) {8} in many cases are as high as that of a conventional single-family home. Mobilehomes have a life span of 20 to 30 years and do not appreciate in value as do conventional houses. Prior to Proposition 13, and prior to the taxation of mabilehomes as real property, this housing form provided a considerably lower tax revenue to local jurisdictions than did conventional housing, and this was a reason far their higher rate of growth and acceptance in unincorporated areas. in 1979, however, the law was changed to allow taxation of mobilehomes as real property. in Butte County,. mobilehomes are located on single lots as well as in mobilehome parks. if the mobilehome is constructed to 197b HUD standards and fixed to a foundation, it can be put in any location zoned for conventional single-family dwellings; otherwise, it is restricted to specified zones {including rural residential). When placed in a mobilehome park, maximum density allowed is l0 units per acre, unless developed through a Use Perti[, in which case the density may be higher. Mobilehomes in parks and on single lots offer different housing services to residents. Those on single lots offer much the same services as conventional single-fancily dwellings. Within parks, recreational facilities are many times shared, and in many areas parks have been restricted to adults only, providing a retirement community far Eose who desire this lifestyle. Mobilehome parks are a unique combination of the privacy of owner-occupied, detached, single-family dwellings, and increased social opportunities due to high density land use. 3-55 E • Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Mobilehomes provide unique housing services when they are located within mobilehome parks; they are particularly suitable for retired individuals who live on fixed incomes, who have substantial savings for a cash purchase of their mobilehome, and who do not look to housing as an appreciating property investment. In addition, they offer a unique lifestyle which combines a low level of outside maintenance, a high degree of privacy, and social opportunity around the home environment. Mobilehome parks are also a form of efficient, high density land use. Mobilehome parks should, therefore, be encouraged as an appropriate housing form for the retired population that is moving into the County. Two problems involved in mobilehome parks are appropriate for local attention and action. The first is the disadvantage of the mobilehome park dweller in being a renter of space and falling victim to rent raises and changes in management policy, which are beyond his/her control. A possible solution to this problem is cooperative ownership of the mobilehome park by mobilehome owners. This aItemative has been tried and proven successful in areas around the country. The second problem is that of increased services needed by a retirement community as the population ages. Fire and police protection must be adequate, and special home-delivered social and health services may be important in allowing certain elderly residents to remain in their homes. The County should plan for this necessity by developing its capacity to serve retired residents in mobilehome parks. Mobiiehomes on single lots, on the other hand, should not be exempt from the necessity for compact and efficient land use. if mobilehomes are allowed to be located in rural residential areas in an uncontrolled manner, the result could be a classic example of leapfrog development. Mobilehomes on single lots should be subject to the same principles of good planning as more conventional housing. Horneless The 1990 Census counted 246 persons in homeless shelters and 60 homeless persons not in shelters in Butte County. Of the total homeless population counted by the Census, 32 were reported in the unincorporated area, none in shelters. There are no homeless shelters in the unincorporated county area. The Census data, by itself, is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the incidence of homelessness, but can provide valuable "benchmark" infomlation in conjunction with client records from homeless shelter and homeless service providers. It is difficult to quantify the homeless problem as homeless persons often defy categorization and identification. Housing services available io homeless persons are located primarily in Chico and Oroville. These include: • The Salvation Arn~y, which provides motel vouchers to homeless women and children and operates a homeless shelter during the late autumn and winter months at the Chico Armory; • The Catholic Ladies Relief Society, homeless women and children to find temporary lodging; • The Butte County Community Action Agency, which operates one house and a l~-unit motel in Chico and four houses in Oroville as transitional housing for homeless persons; - The Oroville Rescue Mission, which provides 14 beds for homeless women and children, two cribs far homeless infants, and 30 beds for homeless men; - Butte County Welfare Office, which provides financial assistance to homeless persons for up to thirty days at local motels; 3-5G Draft Housing Element November 12, ,1992 HERE, which operates a youth shelter for run-aways; and CATALYST, which provides up to three-days shelter for battered women and their children. Although none of the homeless service providers could offer precise numbers of clients, they agreed that available shelter and transitional housing services are used to capacity at most time of year and that additional facilities are needed. Because of the availability of other needed social services in Chico and Oroville, these communities appear to be logical places for the location of most homeless shelters. Based on the 1990 Census report, however, there are homeless persons in the unincorporated county area, and a shelter facility may be indicated to provide better access to homeless services in unincorporated Butte County. The County's Zoning Ordinance does not specifically include homeless shelters or day facilities as allowed or disallowed uses in any zone. There would be no way for a homeless service provider to locate appropriate sites under the County's zoning requirements far a homeless facility, therefore. At-Risk Units The County has contacted FmHA, HUD, CHFA, and has consulted the inventory of federally-subsidized rental housing developments prepared for the California Housing Partnership Corporation. There are no multifamily rental developments in the unincorporated county area at-risk of converting to market rate housing within the next ten years. There are no county-assisted multifamily rental housing developments that would fall within the at-risk category, as well, including density bonus units and county-assisted rehabilitated units. Large Families As shown in Tables 3-$ and 3-9, there were 2,364 owner households of five or more persons in 1990 and 1,261 renter households with five or more persons in 1994 in the unincorporated area. Of the 3,625 large households, 9$ percent (3,560) were faniilies. Historically, home-owning large fanlilies have been less likely to live in overcrowded conditions and gay a more than 30 percent their income for housing expenses than renter large families for two reasons: most home owners live in three- or four-bedroom single family dwelling units and have higher incomes that renter households. Since there is no way, from available 1990 Census data, to compare income and housing expenses by household size in the unincorporated area, the County will assume this historic trend is still valid. The "special housing" need among large families, then, should focus on low-income large families, in particular low-income renter Iarge families who do not have the means to purchase dwelling units with three or more bedrooms- Housing resources for this group in the unincorporated county area are limited to the private market. Low-income households can be assisted in securing and maintaining suitable private housing through the County's participation in the federal Section $ Program and through the County's Housing Rehabilitation Program {which uses CDBG funds, primarily, supplemented by FmHA and state CHRP funds}. To meet the needs of low-income large renter households, the County would need to work with developers to frnd funding sources for affordable rental or ownership housing with three ar more bedrooms. The County could also offer regulatory incentives (such as density bonuses) as an inducement to developers to include large units in their projects. There are no Iarge family housing developments, per se, in the unincorporated area to meet the needs of lower-income large families. 3-57 Draft Housing Elentenl 3.9 HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY November 12, 1992 Table 3-30 summarizes the various housing programs currently operating in Butte County. TABLE 3-30 AVAILABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS OPERATING IN BUTTE COUNTY 1992 Program Sponsoring Agency Section S Housing Assistance Payments Butte County Housing Authority: 1 year contract. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Butte County Housing Authority: 80 moderate rehab contracts. Very i,ow Income. IS year contracts. 89I Section 8 vouchers/certificates. Farm Labor Housing 13uuc County Housing Authority CDBG, CHRP, Rental Rehab 3tatc HCD Housing Rehabilitation Ad~ttinistered by Butte County Public Works HOME Pragram/HOPE New fed program for rehab & construction: funds available beginning 1992 FHA 235/265 Private I?eve]oper Self-Help Housing: new construction and rehab Chico Housing Improvement Program Minor Home Repair and Weatherizaiion Canmunily Action Agency of Bute County, Inc. FmHA Section 802/504 Fanners Home Adutinistration Home Ownership Home Improvement Program California Housing Finance Agency Housing assistance is also provided by the Butte County Welfare Department to families that are eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The County, through a vendor program, will pay up to the full amount of the rental payments depending on funds available and financial situation of the family. There is also a permanent housing program in which the County will pay the last month's rent and security deposits, depending on the eligibility and financial characteristics of the family. 3.10 EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION - 1984 ELEMENT This section of the Housing Element summarizes the County's progress in implementing programs included in its 1984 Housing Element. Included is a description of each program, the objective, if any, which was established for each program, what the County has accomplished since 19$4, and whether the program is relevant for meeting the County's future housing needs between 1992 and 1997. The evaluation of those programs for which the County was not able to meet its objectives includes a discussion of the factors impeding the County's performance, whether or not the program should be continued, and what actions the County could take to make future programs more successful. !. Development Uncertainty All efforts shall be made to promptly inforn~ developers with regard to where residential development will be encouraged and to provide timely infornzation concerning the processing status of pending applications. 3-58 Draft Housing Element November 12, 1992 Development uncertainty can also be minimized by the preparation and adoption of neighborhood ar community plans. Such plans enable the County to resolve sensitive development/ environmental conflicts at the neighborhood level, and relieve the developer of the time-consuming and costly public debates which frequently ensue when projects are proposed. This approach will also enable the County to develop an "environmental data bank", which will make the function of environmental assessment more efficient and less time-consuming. Development Agreements are also being utilized to provide for greater developer "certainty". Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of Element. Units affected: Households county-wide. Status to date: The County has pursued residential development according to the General Plan and other County planning guidelines during the time period of the Element. The County successfully completed a community plan for Durham-Dayton-Nelson area, a specific plan for Chapnmantown, and the collection of planning data for Girdley-Biigs, Oroville, Chico, and Paradise. the County has not had adequate funds to prepare specific plans ar community-based plans for other unincorporated communities in Butte County, however. The revised General Plan, of which this Housing Element is a part, will contain updated information on land use, environmental conditions, infrastructure capacity, and other conditions For sub- areas of the County. As funding permits, the County should continue to collect mare detailed information and prepare more detailed plans on a community basis to facilitate planning and development decisions and to improve developer certainty. Development agreements have been used infrequently in Butte County as a tool 6y developers to increase developer certainty. Only three development agreements for mining and reclamation have been approved by the County and have been used as mitigation tools. Despite the lack of interest. to-date, by developers in the use of development agreements, the County believes that such agreements represent a valuable tool to achieve both county and developer objectives and will continue to encourage the use of these devices for larger developments with Iong development tinme frames. 2. Maintaining and Updated Process The Planning and Public Works departnments, as well as other County agencies directly or indirectly involved in the housing production system, are directed to annually evaluate their practices, procedures, and regulations, and to submit a written report to the Board at a timme specified by the Board. This report shall contain recommendations for improving the efficiency of gavemm~mental involvement in the housing process. Reports submitted to the Board shall be reviewed by a Land Development Advisory group prior to submission far appropriate comment. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: county-wide. 3-59 t3raJt Housing Element November 12, 1992 Status to date: The County Planning Department annually updates its zoning code so as to meet the needs and concems of a changing housing base. The Public Works and other departrrients (environment, health, and public infrasWcture} also respectively evaluate their procedures and regulations in terms of county-wide development. Since development activity has declined dramatically over the past two years, and is projected to remain low over the next year, the County has an opportunity to review its development perniit procedures prior to the next cycle of high development activity. The Land Use Advisory Committee, comprising former members of the Board of Supervisors, was disbanded shortly after the adoption of the 1984 Housing Element. The Board of Supervisors determined that the review function of the Advisory Committee could be performed by the Board of Supervisors. The County does not propose to reconstitute the Land Use Advisory Committee. 3. Development Standards All County departments which enforce design standards applicable to new residential development shall review such standards to insure effective utilization of land, facilitation of innovations, energy conservation and cost savings. The first such review shall be done within a year of Housing Element adoption, and shall be submitted in a report to the Board. Time frame: Annually, throughout Time period of Element. Units affected: Households county-wide. Status to date: The County has not made any substantive changes to residential development standards since 1984 affecting the design or construction of residential buildings. The County has adopted new standards in several unincorporated areas for street, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage. In general, the county has required slightly wider rights-of--way, typically about 4-5 feet, in developing unincorporated communities to accommodate a more urban level of street service (curbs, gutters, and sidewalks) and to accamnaodate emergency access. The aggregate base requirements have been increased to ensure that street can be used year-round and will not require as frequent resurfacing. A fee has also been enacted to ensure that new developments have adequate water delivery pressure to meet fire suppression needs. The County has required drainage improvements for new developments to avoid flooding. Developments in the unincorporated area have, historically, been constructed to much lower standards typical of rural densities. These new development standards have added to the cost of development in the unincorporated area, but they are necessary to ensure that developments in the unincorporated areas, particularly those at more than four dwelling units per acre, can meet minimum health and safety standards for fire protection, flood protection, year-round road use, and pedestrian safety. As the County continues to approve developments at suburban and urban-level densities, it will need to continue to refine its development standards to ensure that health and safety concems are balanced against aFfordable housing concerns. It is important, therefore, for the County to continue to periodically evaluate its development standards. 3-GO Draft Housing Eleneent ~. Density in Relation to the Availability of Sewers November 12,1992 The Land Use Element of the Butte County General PIan establishes the density ranges for each residential designation. Absent is sewage collection for most of the unincorporated portion of the County, the area needed to utilize on-site waste water disposal systems was a critical factor in establishing these densities, particularly for the relatively high density urban categories. With the adoption of the 1981 Housing Element, densities in all urban residential designations were increased. Existing Designation Density Ranges L-D-R I - 6 M-D-R 7-13 H-D-R I4-2d Developments in excess of 4 d.u./ac are required to be PUD or sewered. Septic based developments are based on percolation and other septic-water quality standards; based on the number of bedrooms {i.e., three bedrooms = I2 d.u./ac, two bedrooms = 15-16 d.u./ac, one bedroom = 20 d.u./ac). Since the density limits are keyed to on-site waste disposal requirements, there is little, if any, plaruung justification to maintain these limits in areas where ofl`-site sewage collection and disposal systems are available. In these areas, other factors such as traflrc, adjoining-existing land uses, water supply, etc., should establish the basis for the appropriate land use designation and, hence, density considerations. As a result, a more realistic density range reflecting these conditions might be effective at meeting housing needs, while respecting the development constraints within the County. Since the adoption of the 19$1 Housing l;lement, the multiple zones {R-3, R-4, MHS, PUD) have been brought into full conformity with the. new density limits. "A-2" zoning, Butte County's General Zone and C-1, C-2, are not yet tied into the density limits of the General Plan. The Planning Commission is in the process of remedying this siiuation. Time frame: 1992-I993, as part of the General PIan update. Units affected: New residential units (5,131 is County's share between 1991 and 1997 under the BCAG regional housing allocaiion plan). Status to date: The General Plan was updated during the 1992-93 budget periods. As part of this update, the County has identified sewer and aiherpublic facility constraints which could impede the County's ability to approve developments at densities necessary to meet the County's low- and moderate-income housing needs {generally 6 units per acre or more for moderate-income households and i2 units per acre or more for low-income households). The county will need to pursue a combination of public and private solutions to the lack of adequate infrastructure in the unincorporated area. During the 198Ds, the need to develop these solutions has rat been as urgent, since much of the county's development has occurred as single family subdivisions at four dwelling units per acre ar less, or as higher density development in urban areas adjacent to Chico ar Oroviile, which have public water and sewer systems. To meet the County's low- and moderate- income housing needs, however, the County will need to take a more active role as a partner with the private sector to develop solutions to the lack of 3-U l Draft Housing Element November 12, .199,2 infrastructure. The County will also need financial assistance from the state and federal governments to pursue infrastructure solutions for low-income housing. 5. Use Government-Assisted Programs for Lower-Income Housing a. The Butte County Housing Authority shall fully use all available housing assistance. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: Households county-wide. Status to date: To date, there are many available fornis of housing assistance the Housing Authority can use. The Housing Authority owns and leases housing units far low- and very low-income families; however, these units are all located in the now incorporated cities of the County. The Program administers 285 duplexes and townhouses, an increase of 1 l5 units since 1980. Of the 170 housing units under the Program in 1980, 70 were located in then unincorporated cities of Biggs and Gridley. The Housing Authority also administers the County's Section 8 rehabilitation and voucher program. The Housing Authority assists 793 households county-wide with Section 8 certi0cates, approximately one-third (262) of which are in the unincorporated county area, The Housing Authority also administers 158 rental vouchers, and approximately 52 of these vouchers are held by households residing in the unincorporated county area. In 199?, the Housing Authority administered 130 farmers housing units. These units are filled at full capacity and there has been an average waiting list of 50 applicants. The high occupancy rate and demand is not a response to greater farm opportunities but instead to a Farm Labor Requirement in 19$6 that allows rentals to persons with only temporary evidence for pemranent residency status. The Housing Authority would like to add an additiona125 to 50 units in the next several years, but not has not been able to secure funding. There is also a Rental Assistance Program administered by the Housing Authority which helps low income residents meet their rental payments in units administered by the Authority. Sincere there are waiting lists for all of the programs administered by the Housing Authority, it is obvious that the county will need to continue its pursuit of additional assistance for low-income households. There are no program barriers that would prevent the Housing Authority from using additional funds for rental and famiworker housing subsidies. The availability and competition for funding are the primary factors detem~ining the aniount of assistance received by the Housing Authority relative to the need, The County recommends that the Housing Authority continue its role in administering rental housing and farmworker housing programs. b. The Board of Supervisors shall utilize all appropriate Community Development Programs--federal and state--which facilitate the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income households. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. 3-GZ • Draft Housing Element November 12, ]992 Units affected: Dependent of number of eligible households and acceptance of loan application. Status to date: The County has applied for CDBG funds in I985, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, and 1992. The County received funding in I985, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1992 for housing rehabilitation (see below) and public works (sewer connections in Vi11a Verona, street repairs in Chapmantown, and drainage improvements in El Medio}. In addition, Butte County has received CDBG planning/technical assistance grants for housing and income surveys. The CDBG program has been one of the County's most frequently-used source of funding and should continue to be a key feature of the County's housing strategy. c. The County's Community Development Staff shall investigate the feasibility of participating in tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing for housing programs to benefit low and moderate income households in the County. This action shall take place within a year of Housing Element adoption. Time frame: Periodically, beginning within year of Element adoption. Units affected: Flexible depending on the number of units financed andlor the availability of funds. Status to date: Financing through tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds can be provided through the California Housing and Finance Agency (CHFA). However, there have been no CHFA financed multi-family units in the unincorporated County during the time period of the Element. The County has investigated the possibility of issuing bonds locally, but has detem~ined that it would not be financially and administratively feasible to do so. Other options would include ajoint-issued of bonds with another locality {possibly Chico or Oroville) or a request that CHFA issue bonds on behalf of Butte County. A lack of staff has prevented the County from pursuing these options, and unless the County's financial position improves between during the next two years, it is unlikely that the County would be able to manage a band program and use tax-exempt bonds to finance housing during the period covered by this Housing Element. Although tax-exempt bonds represent an important method alp linancing low- and moderate-income housing, the use of this option will be low-priority unless the County can obtain the administrative capacity within the next two years to manage such a program. d. The County's Community Development shall investigate and promoie more cost effective use of Federal and State Housing and Community Development Programs. This activity shall be ongoing. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Housing EIement. Units affected: Flexible with amount of loan and dependent on acceptance of loan application. Status to date: The County has received funding for housing rehabilitation under the CDBG program in 1985 (28 loans}, 1988 {25 loans}, 1994 {241oans}, and 1992 (25 loan objective}. In addition, the County has used income from loan payments under these grants to assist 57 additional households since 1985. In total, the County has, or will, assist I S9 households under the CDBG program with grants obtained 3-G3 r. Draft Nor~sing Elenrent Novemfier 12, 1992 between 1985 and 1992. This has been one of the County's most effective programs, and should be continued. Due to staff, the County has not been able to use other pausing programs for which the County would be the lead agency. The County does not have the financial capacity to pay for the administrative costs of state or federal housing programs, and is limited to using those programs which provide administrative funds. During the period covered by this Housing Element, Butte County will investigate ways it can use the resources of other agencies, nonprofit housing corporations, and private developers to take advantage of a wider array of housing programs. 6. Effective Land Use--)Crnpraving the Use of Land The County shall maintain minimum lot sizes consistent with the densities provided for in the General Plan. Applicable County policies and ordinances are being reviewed for compliance with this standard. The County will continue to encourage second dwelling units {"Granny Flats") as allowed by Government Code Section 65852 and Section 24-202 of the Butte County Code. Time frame: Concurrent with adoption of Element. Units affected: Dependent on households interested in developing second dwelling units. Status to date: The Country has maintained minimum bt sizes consistent with the General Plan. Section 2~1-202 of the Butte County Zoning Code also allows second units to be constructed in any of the 15 agriculture zones and zone A-2 (limited general). The development capacity of land in unincorporated communities is dictated primarily by the presence ar lack of public facilities. The County could make more effective use of developable land if the lack of public facilities in most unincorporated areas could be addressed. This should be a high priority in the County's housing strategy between 1992 and 1997. There has been little interest on the part of the development community in the use of density bonuses or other regulatory incentives that the. County could make available for low- and moderate-income housing. Only one such request has been received in the past fifteen years. Infrastructure restrictions, in combination with deveIoper/market preferences since the late 1970s, has favored single family developments at four dwelling units per acre or less oriented to the needs of retirees, "move-up" homebuyers, and purchasers of second homes. These are not the types o€ developments which would ordinarily make use of development incentives designed to encourage low- and moderate-income housing. Nevertheless, the County should continue to seek ways to promote these incentives and find developers willing to use these incentives for the production of affordable housing. Because the County's share of the region's affordable housing needs is so large, it will be imperative during the next five years that County more actively promote available incentives to interest developers in producing affordable housing. These incentives can only work, however, if the County can address the lack of infrastructure which prevents higher density development needed to make to production oflow- and moderate-income housing financially feasible. 3-G4 Draft Housing Element November 12, 199 The specific requirements of the second dwelling unit state it must be less than 640 square feet and can be occupied by only one person or two persons over 60 years. These limitations have, in part, discouraged applications for second units. The County has not generally promoted the construction of second units as an affordable housing option. Because this is a potentially valuable program to increase low-income housing opportunities in existing communities, the County should evaluate its current ordinance with the purpose of relaxing unit size and occupancy restrictions. The County should also evaluate methods to increase the public's awareness of this housing option. 7. Residential and Neighborhood Rehabilitation a. Residential Rehabilitation The County shall continue its use of governmental assisted programs which provide attractive financing for rehabilitation financing in lower-income neighborhoods. The Board shall take appropriate steps to expand the eligibility of additional neighborhoods to oval! themselves of these programs. Time frame: Annually, during time period of Elen~cnt. Units affected: Dependent on size of loan and acceptance of Ioan application. Status to date: See status of Program Sd. b. Ne_~hbarhood Improvement In areas of high concentration of substandard housing, and where neighborhood conditions are deteriorated, the County shall assist to the maximum extent feasible in the upgrading of neighborhood conditions, such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street improvements, sewers and street lighting. Time frame: Annually, throughout time period of Element. Units affected: county-wide impact. Status to date: The County has used CDBG funds to repave streets and provide sidewalks in Chapmantown, and has used CDBG funds to improve storm drainage in El Medio. The County has also sponsored neighborhood clean-up campaigns in the two communities. The County will continue to seek state and federal assistance to improve neighborhood conditions, but the receipt of future funding will depend on the seriousness of the health and safety problems compared to problems in other communities since most programs are competitive in nature. S. Housing Policies for Special Groups a. The County shall recognize that social and health services are a part of a decent and satisfying living environment for many elderly persons, and in doing so shall monitor the activity of, and participate with groups in the community which are responsible for the provision of these services. The County shall recognize the need to support service providers efforts through hearing special requests, offering technical assistance and in jointly planning for adequate provision and financing of services to the elderly. 3-GS z • Draft Housing Element Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: Dependent on eligible households. November 12,1992 Status to date: The County has incorporated incentive progran-s into its zoning code directed not only to low-income residents but also to other special population groups. The County's zoning code allows for density bonuses if the target households include elderly or low-income residents and also provides for the needs of handicapped persons. b. The County shall support the efforts of various agencies in the community which advocate for and/or work with the County's fam~worker population. The County shall assist in assessing and planning strategies for the financing of farmworker housing needs. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: Dependent on farm workers population. Status to date: The primary agency in the County that plans and provides for the needs of the farmworker population is the Housing Authority. The County's can support the Housing Authority's role through its planning and development review responsibilities if additional farmworker housing is needed. Between 1984 and 199?, there were no additions! farrnworker housing projects developed in the unincorporated county area because the Housing Authority has not been able to secure funding. c. The County shall support the efforts of groups and agencies in the cammunity which advocate for and/or work with disabled persons. Assistance shall be rendered in the forna of assessments, plaruling and development financing, and strategies for special housing provisions to meet the needs of the handicapped. The County shall also seek to better acquaint the development industry and the design profession of the need for design and building solutions to this problem. Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: Vanier with eligible households. Status to date: The County has adopted planning measures in its Zoning Code which address far the needs of handicapped persons in new multifamily developments. The County also implements the requirements of state and federal law for handicapped accessibility. The County uses CDBG funds to assist low-income homeowners retrofit their dwelling units for accessibility by mobility-impaired individuals. 9. Equal Opportunity in Housing It shall be the policy of the County to promote equal opportunity and access in housing for aiI persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin or color. This policy shall apply throughout the County and especially within the Community Development Block Grant Program and other areas where the County has administrative authority. 3-tiG Draf3 Housing Element November 12, 1992 Time frame: Annually, throughout the time period of the Element. Units affected: Households county-wide. Status to date: The County has adopted a fair housing plan which complies with state and federal laws for the receipt of CDBG funds. Because of limited County staff, the County is not able to undertake all of the fair housing activities that are suggested by the California Department of Housing and Community Development The County has, however, designated an individual in the Planning Department to receive and refer housing discrimination complaints and to provide information available from governmental agencies and fair housing organizations on fair housing laws. 3-67 i ~- Draft Housing Element 3-G8 November 12, 1992 .. d ~ --~...~...n~-t O ~ OO~c ~m~ O N N A N N ~PyC fG O ~ ~c m~s~oac p' h m0 cgv, -_ m- -_m-^^-m-~ 7D fO -nb ~~~1(} ~ n «C mm "omco-am "~ m ro -_rowm a~O mr~aoc^~m a nno ~O4~~o,... 9 co ch ^ ~ m ,~ n ~ N M (D ~ ~ rw c oo ao~~a~a m c-- 6-O.°: ~py~ ~ nw mnOn~~n ~ ^~ ~~OO.~NK ~ K "' ~ cam Om0'~Ow ~ ^n'O ~QC C ~~ ~' ~~ m mo m c ~~wr.~c ~ nT c`~-_~-- O in ~G a~ ~, K O O. -.~ cn ""_ O A 00 fD O'ti ~ ~ ~ c N 0 n O ~° m w n~ O N Oc~ ~-N_.-.~~ f(~ O C ~n -a m £~"~Qo ~ pre t n ~ w ~ w ..".p _.~-N ~a ~3~w» ~.. v ~f° Q^m ~a~ ~~ w ?n a a C ~+• w ~ r. °'Q rooccnm~. ,m ~nc~m N ~, _ n0 ~no~~ ~~=m-m as 0~1N0~ Mm mom Qy ~ ... .3~. ~ N 0. , w O Qc -n~^~-. - 9 (p N ~ ~ a~..~~ d O~^ n...=...~_ r- ~ O ,C ~° c ,w p'c9~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ K Nn as~ON~ n^ O~~a m .-.gym-~~ ~ w r._ ma~~n w O~~n-u .a ~ ~ ~~N~ ~~ »7 m O mw AwO,..m` a~ ~ m -.o~~-_p .. ?C ~ In ~ c O . a cw rn~ so ~ -- ~ n ~^ .n +e w w Q ~ V n ~,amo. ~ o~ p w O m ~~ m m ~ ~~ ~n ~_ f° m°,w ~^ na-~ C np. 7 ~ ~ N ~ C ° ~ °~. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ GQ ~~ a roVV tea"" ~~. mom •e - ~~w -~ m_•--p n_o Q AO~dfDr UI - N w ~ W fP S 0 N ~ 7 ~ N 3 3 7 m C O n~ m e ~ p w c w m w` ~ O r.n 3~w a w ~ <~ ~ O .o w ro a: - m - ~ - .,~ ,o r. N ... ,e N vm .., ~ M rro'. a o ' a_ °~N ~ °m`~° o 7 X 0 0 T O v '~, ~ O O - O ~ o ~ ~mm o m ~ n~ '° .. ~ Own ~n v m• ~ n~^ ° ~ v w w c w w71 n - n..r ~ N m n ns a .- ,;, ,,; N w o m m a n~o H N '~ na v o O ~° c n ~ n m~ ~ - ~' ~° N ~y f9 ~ h rn < nw~ w a ° o ,~ 7 -' 7 a W ~O w n ?." n r co N - ~ a ~n w ~ ~ n ~ - C3 3 p ~ QDn n Z -0 w ~ ra ^o- o e~ a w C f0 .~ LS 10 "~ N _ ~ n m -- N m - a _'`^Q n~ c "~ a n-~ m -c - C N v t wn-t ~ rho a~ .. N 'o m m -~ ^ ~ ~ " w ~ ~~ c w .. ? M 7` O_ O 7~ N n w n 1 a ' ~ x C ao ~ C1 w OD ~ A t0 O ~ C_ n .~. C ~ 4 N f4 n o .~ n m O N ~ ~ 7 ,C-. C1 m ~ ,~ ~ ~ - o ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ O V m fo ~ m 0 w O B c 4 ~ ... ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 !~ ~ - N ~~ ~ M ~ N m c`° n _ ~ . p" O n ~_ w Y N ~ ~' - ~ Q ~ R ~ ~ ~ n 3 lD ~ iT an O ~ ~ w 'C O N ~ 7 a 0. ~ Q,- n w O 03 w n~ m o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~n m O~ m m - n n "' m m m m ,~~' m O ~a ~ ...:° n ~ ~° n w ~~ ~ ~ vo m - ~ N wa m° ~ mK ~.. m c ,.. ~. ~ K o `~ c y ~ ~ ~ Q r "' w ro a a ~ a 5i o o we _ c ~ 7 T R1 fG k~ Cd n LiM] N 0 ~~ -n rn Z 0 N W O ~"~ • "D Q ~• n r-r r N O ~+ "~ tQ N `~ D "O T Z 0 X m e m n vQ c '~ m m K IX i ro n . m ~ OI \ \ N m m rn m ~" v, o m -- 7 A ~ a 4 ~ R G ~ N .~ ~ ro~ ~ N m d m _ n ~'~ v mw _ O ~ s O p' 10 - n Q~ n ~ a o1 ~ a p' ~ Zm ~ ~v ~ - m -» pn ~ > ~O C ~ CCC m (p r ~ ~n a O w C a~ Z f9 fD ~ O m n~ ~ ,m ~ N - (~ w Q ^ t ~ ~ ~ 7 a~ w 7 r ~+ n _p w ~ a ~~ ~ r- row - c9 w ~p .-« n .•« w w m w n n ~,. .~- a -. to rfl m o as a _ m ~- ~ ro n co co y o ^ °. ~ ~ a < wm r. - <, ~ ro, o o m ~ o'n m ~ co .- D m m < ~o . ~~ o a^ w D. ~ ~ ~ rom m a a ^ w A ~ o< m Zm a C N ~ d a ~ Z ssssJ o.~ n ~ t^ ~ 7 C a m m r ~ v a m v Z~ ~ cai n = ~ a a ~~ ~ m C ~ O p~ rn Z A C7 m ~ ~ m C7 w "' - r .... N yN ~ ro ~ ~ O a .... c c ~~ m m' ~m ~ a -. ~ ro - a c~ - ro an n r'o ^ ~- w~ m ,., a~ . ~ IH H H H I" a ~ ~ o'~ODC~-3~--0 rovrocoM~ nro~wu.~^-AO } ro^-pOC3m-•O 7~ 77~ N-a~3C-7'CO C --ro ~ro,C9ro a-~eeoro - 3-NNromro ~ N3~- _ rowm ~-N ~ -~ymNry~G~ ro~» ~ ^ ~Wp ~DC-C~ } ^ro~aro~~c° ~~»3m a~rom~rn~wD~ k ^p o o a - .^'^ F min ~Oc~a>>niy r-a,..rn~D ~ny?~°O ~~ i ~an3~ro 3~ m,`"~mm ~or'oK~?~dro~ C O'n°_'~ N" w m } ~~ ~ N^~~- m ~ m O N N w °^ o a 3 o N~~ G m ro ~ ~ oa mfDC~~~Qro C --w o Bm ro~ ro x~nts _a~~ roroNN oo ro Nrororo o-•...a _ ~ -. o ai°3Pni~-w d? ~c i ~O O DC.CD ~N~ ~f°m~a,N~ro ~ ~.. ~ 3cao~c F n~°.a'~Dmrocw ro-3m~ y~^~a ~ i 1 SC P'[D ro A 9 -"a' p d N~ o~c a ~ d~ roro~rowa F (D in lD ~ .~ a ~ a ~? N - ro ^ 1v--na- wince-p ~w`"P' -rn GG5 ~u~ G N ron Tw win . ~~ n6~Oc -3 T~ aw ~NNroro G Ca ww~~a~ ~c ro a t ~n n Win- -~3~C 00~0~^~~~ i i i i ~ i i i i ~ r a a i~ ~ ~i Fi ID >x' ;: p..~ W 7F L=1 a i:F-~ H ,, `~ "'CS a a :: c~r Q I" W N ro a n c m ~ n tr w a m i ~ ~ - a^^mv ~n ~a ,ten pan ~ -•-a ~ wa - ~9~m -~-- Nn N mS m m- ~mS ~.-m m-~S -+m -' - Dro- n~.- S ro ~~ - mCmx NaNY7 N-yn fb~ cb tD O^7 -ro7 - m (p = mNm p - oc ~ o mm arc ro ~~ _m~c aura f° _ -ro m ~ rro ro , -.-_ ~ < . c ~.~. ti~N _.N S ~Cm ^ ro m~ Na~-D. oo ro ... 9 ~ ro QroOro ~ R' O ~ ~3 9 , Dc0 ~ ~- -N D NN O oc - ~w N oa ~ ~ ~ D 1o C ^ ^C .+ ~ ro ~ ~ ro O 7 ~ N O S~ rO ~ ~ O C O '~ m '" n = p ' ~ O ~ W ~O ~ b ~ roN ~~ W m O ~ ~~^~ ' w n m~ m~ ,,, ro --1 ~ ro ro ~ D ~ r 3m~ n N c c wo ~, „~• G MI C /~ - cD ,-. ...3 m a Cl rpro g~ p GO nro a p - - a -~ ~ ^ ~ O a D -+ ta`^ w - 3;D ~nm ~ K ~ ~ -~ o y OA o m o _n o ro ~~ O a D C n» N - ~ o.ro C +~ - C ,y m m N N ro wm~ 7 Cm ~ row -ro ~~ ~ .. ~-O ~- ...m m O -+ m m ~ w ro -QO -mta m-[> > o nro ro0 m0 a mm--~ . 1 rc n ro ro ~ ~ ~ ,.. ~ , n ii i ~i ii i it °mOd~ m- ro4.m7 3 C ^ N tC ^C W O• ro ~ - ~ N cpO=~~ _ n „awro a~yn~o row~roN ^~~N~ OO,c~q 3 N 7 xa~..._D ro ~Q~rro a,~o 0 O~~Q 7 adv0 roao~ O ro N ~ n -.-ro ro -~ m mOOn ~-~~ [ I Ix ro a n a m I~ ro- cv ~n ov roe ~ ~ N ro n ~ ro Cp-. rG C7 ^ afD m= ro- rod nro ro ° m ~ D~ oa ^' >? cm O• C W Q^ O (/, N ~ 0 3 n0 N~ O D. ,-. S O ,~ a n~ .,,, O c m NO p~ ~ ,-.a nn -' _ m a - '- O -. - ~~ a ron ,n ro t ~ ~ ~ N ro p. K O •C O 3 N '..~ C ti ,~,~ N D ..,. a ~ ~ .+ n ~ ~ ^ N ro mn ~ O ~ ro n N ~ ~ O ~ ~ n ~ io 3 ... .d. > ~ n ~ o ^ - °~ ~ ~ o m O ~ W O '~ ~ D ~ - m ~ .. N ~ n O ~ ro ~ III[I I [X IX Ix Ix I I Ix Im I~ ~ V CT to A w w r .n r CT w ~ L1 n ~ w ~ Ci n aS w ~ r - 3 (O mm ~ a Q 2 Gf ~ ~ ^ w C -444i m ~ ~ I i r . O 7 m • n w 7 ~ m x ... ~ ~ 3C~ Ow- ^ 070 ro N-3n nwc~• r "^ nA m ^w- m 77 OA m n.»7Cf -^~~ T m ^m mx NOvr C.+G wFmCf l]-~.~~ Oa ... A ~ - a n ~ = w aT .- -ro 7~ .- p, m m ~ an -nt~so !T+ n v9c a -- - a me au m w ~m1ar~ -o w a ~ Q amN c .• .• w -3~~ rc ao ' O o N N ...^ ~w o e a n - mad ..,~ pp ao ~ n N mao o -- .• ~nrorn , ^ _ ra c w N ^ ? w- ,.p ~mFi rowc n... w^ ~w^m -~N ~ •» - ~co~ c n.» su- _ ^m ~ F me c~^ -Fw -- m^^m ^w ow c.- ~ ~ N ~ ro~' ~'''' w m row X30- r ~ 3 ao~ 3~-' - a wm- aw a aO m~ a a ~ v ~ O-~ n = a~oN°' ~ a ~p~ ~ QW, ~~-- m w w^ c. o~ vo mP p m m ~ ~o . » ~ ~-gym m w -o ~ N ~ a as ro mfg n ..OCm mr, ^° ro ~ o v x w O w N a ~n ° _ 0 v, ,,, m ~ _ N -. 4O ~c ~'~ °°i a- T `° _ ~ X E a ~ ro " Nn n v m ~ xw~ ro~ ^ a~ n wa ' o o „~ nm -^ a _ o.- ~? ~ a v ~~ ~ Qna O ~ - ~ _ ~ro ~ P ~ ~ N ^'G N~ 3m w m ~^w.m N{~ `^N ~ ~ m~ a m w~ m N ~ -• N ~mfOi pN N w[d`"- ^, 0 =•„m ON N O- ^ w N ~ n~ w~m•e 7 ,- t7 C m ~ ~ m ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~-C aD ro [d A m ro O -• -[ H _a y _ ~? C n `. O ~ O ro n N ~ 7 ~ _ N w N ~ N w N ^ N a O~ a= - O m ,,, . -. 3 ~ D m .. - O O a N-~ O c ~ ~ w a ~ w 0 O m O~ ~ O w o ~ O~ ^ w ~ 0 t ~w ~ °c ~N3N ' w .' Nc wNN - ~ 3t ap .,,mnP C1N w m ~ 7 N7 H _ ? a T ~ N.-.a ~3 a.,a . . ~ ~ -^ a,...7 w N a7 m N ~ ~~ ~ a •.~ N n - N e w p n-~ _ O n .`...` F?. m ro~ a N ap N ~ ~ - m C M ~ ~ n m Oy 7 7~ O 0' m n w N a7 '~~ N ~ ~ N w ~ _ n c m -~ w Ewa c w J~ w w a - ao w w om m _ ww n ~ O ^ 3N0 w ^ ~0 c wON o i I l l i l i I I I I l l l l l I Ix I IX i x l i i" Ix I I I x I I iX i x I Ix I I IX I x I I I x I X I I x I x I Ix l b N A tV N O m m d n tT w ro G~ m a n 4 w •. ••i O ~ ~ Q a .~ d 2' i A < ~ ~ 3 h p p m ~ d~ 1 O ~ N D ~ A ~~ - ~ O ~ q ~ to ~ ~ ~~ •-• ^~ ~ a- .-.7 G~n7 •-rn nm n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ to ~ O^ o Z ~~ n.-pu.~ ~ .... N ~ ^' "` .•. a w w- w •~, n a O -. ~ C m~ an ~- w m nm ~~ wo• tp~ ~m ro (D C7 ~_ ~ p'~ O m0 ~N Oa^-c ~m-Q~ to a Ny y _ m w a> >c p - m ~m n ~•~- ' ~N c om D a_ ° ~ n'^ n '"~. - ~ O Q S _ wm N O m v ~ C m ~w -w New ~ ~"' d an+ a caw Z m » ow~c - ~~ A _ a rc O ~ w O ~, a O ~ w N rD n.+ ... p«» ~ p , w ~... ~ n ~.. wa w4~ gym-. N- mm tN= Oro n0 non tom A m m ~ ~ O ... n + D -O . + -- oo wp o pro a a- ai ~ N r.m, ~ - ~ m to n o m N ~ 0 5 w ... ~ ~ ff ~~ ~n ._ ._ 9 a o m n ~ _ d n o o 5 m X ~ ~,, a ° ti °~'` ~ ' co m -'~ ~ r. r. ~ ~ ~ C - 5 n ,•. 0 ~n C ~ 6 ~ pro O v~ n D a m _ d .-- - w -- ~ c - m °` ~ ~ a w a ~ m ~ w a . ~ m oaa N"• ~° my xt w -_' p$ ~~ - ~ ~ a . . m rc N ro n ~ O n m m Nn v ~d - O~ ~~ ~m ~ ~ ~ O p C ~ _ O N = ~'~ ~ w wn ~ ' n v 9 h O aOD O •.m . ~ ~ ? n wcm O V? p, _ °' m :.r m ~ ~ is - a m w _, r, w _ m o ~ ~ m - d R O ~ O - m w w ,r, A '^ ~ v a m ~ ~, ~ .-. N ~ . . Gm c~ ~ m m Q - N n C -, w n a ~ O - m , N - w_ - - w ro~ ~ O ~ o x w o n w w d N '~ m C mw ~~ 9m m m m d w m O pt a .,, m m, o n o --• c- m ~ n ~ ~ w -• fD w ~ - n ~ 7 3 O w~ N r. O ~• a Kmn O - oo ~ O - w ~ d~ ~n m^OC d re .. a... ~ ,, m m - - a- ~,.c ....~_ ,n - I I x Ix f x IX Ix I I I I I I I x I I I 1 Ix I I I I I I x I i x I x I x I x I l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I x I I I I I l x I x I x I X N O ~O OD V O~ n n Q d ~ m 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. n G d O~~ ~ Q a nO [T a~ Cl tn r to m 5'^ m C~ ~ Cn ~O$ a0~ ~ Oro ~ p Z -NO ro "~p [~ cn ~m ?(~ 7 ~ O ^i fA (n ~ m ~~p !n nNN roC oro^ -- ~ ~d -c - -. ,n - ~ - n - m w .e ~•-.~7 • ax tea a~ nim ~ m ~ - o - ro w - ~ m g c<„ roOc rcv ~..~ com ~ a.w~n w- ten- to - ^~~• ap as m m - ro w n m-,N N ro ^ ~ C ~ ^ a~ n- w ~ .~ ~ ~ O N a -c p suc^ md~ n...ro 0,,,,m n 17 _ apt- a~ n ~.m .,~ ~ ~ w n _ .•.p- aNc ..~-~ -N~ r.roro mt oc m 0-- a~~... n - m N a - m v3~9 n-p -np ani0~ ~ ro ~~.+ ca ~ a ~ o ~ r d -. $ ~v nwN p' .-gyp ~nOw "' ~ O 0~~3 ro o m n~ ro ~ .-. m ~ m d . N y0/O ~ ~ ,-.n _.. _ ~_ _ ro _' _ r. m 0 ~^ t _ on L Ow ~ ~~ fD b '" O N ~a ,..p ~3A eta - a ~ N y' w ~ a o C N - - ~ ~ ~ ~ N ro ~ (p ~ S11 N N '(] ID a a ~ G. -rqt -, ro C ipNyO ~ Nd C 3 a ~ . .. '~ N~' ~ ro-- c-O• ~ a p~ c C p roa H ~'" a ?. ~^ X00 O~w O~ 05 9~{~ - ++~ ^ 07 7a~ O cro ° fD m a ~ro~~ s, ..a ~ Na mca ~m a~ ~^ •v ` ~.• m~ n~ o ~ ,nom ~x - ^y p07 n-N -m N-, x -a3 _". oro 3 ~ m ro pro ~rox - c ro a _ m n _ ~ -a _ - _ _ __ a~ n^ pa o ~n ~oaa a a ~p ~~ O co~v .-o ,- n~ ro.. marom - ro, row I ~ I I f I I I I I x IX Ix I X I x I I I I f X I I I IX I I I I I I x IX wa»n~^7•a~~ Na.,.. .mom,-.~ ac mo a- cm-vuo a c~-N -. ~ ~mmn S O fD _ ~- _ _ _ _A ~ » ro » ~(C Q C f0 ^~ - N ~ ~ -~ .-N ~ C O - .+~ S 0.N Sf' G [D C _ _ ... ro ~o~"ro^wo~~a~ 3~m-~~~ ~ 3a a- o ~ 3 ^~ m a-m O•L1y .h-.Ohu~iO fDN fUON~~"'N a cN ,.., ~3 nn^ inn j. q..-. ,,, s .. .~ - w ~ w N ro ~ d ~ w~ 4• G N w 7 ~ ~`~°^~~N N~ 47~w3 a~ -~~nwn~ mf°~rom~-9 m ~ ^m• m °-a Q m 0~ C~ ISb 0~~ ~ w~ 0. N~~ C a Q N ~ N- a-~ - A w w n- A 4 p ro n d- ~9NnomQCp pan-"'dn3a ro ~~ - .-. -~-... o -nD• a~f4~y a~~m~p^~ T o'~~-. 9 5'mf°w~ mnmzm' acn a~~an .... m wOK3.,T» pn~y»3- w`an.,.~m~ tea. ^~°w~ cm_mw^~aro~ aN r.m^o o~n ra a: noa vm m zn c.1n~•-•w3~~ ~~ Nvw ~ SCfD^~ ^5743 O 7 --m w 3 S7 3...33•cm.-mra 8n~m~: m m~~~~_o+na»qnn~ M~N~•C 0.C fCCwnm ^ .w-»~~-.»- w4 HG-C ~ -N •-•-'w~~f4a~~-maQ3~ n Q. ~~^ c p ry er ~~ C X10 7 Q y O^ _ 1~4 w r.-~^ h w N G^~•..~- ro - ~p 7 .~r0 ~ v n~ ~c'^a~oQ~°ro~~iuo 3~ N-m'~vc m,'; 3M-gym aM~w ^c m-mro.... -~ 3 epc-v ~~-c~on~a 5a~~o_~ro ~ovn .~ry7n_.7-~Q^^ c ~ " ro Np~~m~'wa-rm~t~ m~Onnn~'~~w~ n C~~NC~ CafD ~~n~a~~m~~ ~o nanwN~~n~c~~n N~^•-C 3~ro» ~~ o^ -t ~? Ta~,c- a Na.. m~3x~~~aro~a ~7w aar.~mm .n 7K 0.m~Qmro~nN0.~ x NS "•'~a Np v'P~ mro C(~n ~~ ~wO~wry d ,... ~ .3-. ~ ~„ ~~. m 7 _ O ~ b [D G ~ .-• 7 - n ~ 7wf0 ~7.3n7r-N ~ m-mr.mamuaN'-oro -•naca~ -w~c~aro.-m-a ~a 0 0 7 7 ? 3 m O~ 7 S N Nm m awm~ am -3... - 3¢~,.- w..nn~ mntN• ~..7 _ -~-~ ^ "47~3fbb3C "~n N~CN -w7 .0.i. c~ V~ 0343 ara cp~row-'w E„~ ND, a0.m G7_ ~ W ~w`~Q n fn O -, "C Oa•"•h7a vaQp ~~n~c~o b ~~~R_~ ~~dmwnaw- ~ Q ~,C O 3r"~Li3 »wc _~ T ~ m ~ ^' an toN E,n <7AOmm3~a Mi 3a~ ~.ro mom"- wroo ~ 5~~~ ~O mw^~~a„n„O E••~ ~.nN?» ~3m~9m .•.m 7r cram ro ~ ^m -m ~o ~'n H m xo- a-•n9N,cD y ~m~~»-' ~3~in~m~o H ~~~" ~~a~r~op o~~a~~ n N m rc wro"~~mm X00 - S ^ K 7 3 ro , y +nw~ro~~ v~e3'_w~c c~...~am ,•,mmct~awT Q p°-7o~ w ova --• a ~~^a ^O~^w» o k ~~ ... -n.-.3 n ro w~,n--• ro C~pd °<n7~ who{swum 7 m 0 0 w 7 0 N 7~ Q... 7 m ~ ^-+ ~~ q, c w .- o ~ m 3 3 ,-. ~ ~ ,p row-~7 -~7om~om.o 0.-7 m- 7.•• .-•fD~0.N V i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I.TI .ji w IV - i Q r (lSnZ m ~CAO~ nza~ 2~W 2-CO ~~03 j~O7 prao p~00 Qzloo ~o ~ ac w roc D wc - wc Cc aa wc ~ wc ~ wc ~ Oc ~ wc w •~• ~ r+ N ~ r-r ' • N r-r 'rt I '+ V ~ V r•' o ~ r•' p rM r+ Q c rr n ~ ~+ w ~n ~ w '-. r+ ~ r•. V ~-. V n C Q r-+ ~ tD r-. C - o ~ ro -• m -, rC C co ro ~ ro ~ ro - ~ r~ ~ r~ •- r•. ro +"* ~ ~- 1 a j -- r» ~ zy ~p ~o ra nn ~ j~ j a n go I p n I o ro mp ro wn cv n0 ~,, -,~ ~ _ ~,~ n~ ?~-. R r. n ~ n ~ ~ -~ '~ w '~ w. ro -~ ~ -v z -o w .. ~-[ .. --c • ~m ~ o ~~ n a ~ ~~ ~ ~~ n ~ ~ ~ D ~ 4--. ~ Qa V j~ O g~ fob Ry~ ~ d~ ~ ~~ ~ w~ O `t ~ O ~ ~~ G] °~ 3aQ °~ ~ ~ ~ n3 2 a ~ m C C] p~ fD ~ ~ ..a .OO ~ ~'~ o - .ice a m~ ~v ~° w 0° •„• I ~, w -a -n ~ w n w cn ~ ro o ~ z w ce n ro cn.0 w cow ro, w ~ ~ n p, ~ ro ro ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ w -~^, ram ~'"' ~ ~ o~ a9 ~ ...,-, ~ -'~ v r~w n ~~ o n~ `~-°" ~ro ~ °~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m~ c o ~ • ro r» aQ ~ n j p' Ln tv ~ ro ~ ~ O ~ O C Z o rn cD ~ rn ~ ~ cn w cn C) r. n n ~ ce y D c c n ro T vs n D x {~ "' rr~ c • cD w rn w ~ ~ D ~ ~ r7 fD -• fD ~ ~ ~ ~ fD °' ~ ~ ~ fQ O ~ -w = n fL ~ = -' ~ ~ N ~ o rn Q ro ro C lD m e Q, ~p _. w .- p p, - n D ..... D ro N G rp ~ ~ O ~, ¢' ' ro 0~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ O C •~ ~ ~ ~ cn 2 ~ ~ n ro 3 ~ 3 T ro ~ n ~ _ .,... -n n ~ n o - •-« ro ro ~* m ro -• c n -• a w ~ ~ -- •~•• c w c -• c w o --• y n m w ro -~ N n~ w - w ~ ~ ~* o r. ~ 7 rh - fD ~ [I) ~ V7 - Q ~ d 0 w w H ,hd x H r z n H L=! N ..~ ...{ ...{ .i J 1 V a+ to ~ w w om-~w c (DC-'c ~ 'd r-r ~ r~ ..-~. w ,~ ro r. ~, •~ co ro m ~ ~ O, -, tDf]Op [n rr ~..t ~cro~ ~, ~ n ,-« ,~ -*.[ O y rn ~~ Q o ~, ~ fD'ti~a ~+ v,fo_ ^+ ~~ g ~ v ~•f° ro ono ..., w ~ m n ~~ o ~~~ m ~c~ a~ h w rn• C ~ ~+ - n r* ~ ~ '- c f7 r* lD O ~_ w a m U. w m y G !~ O w m ~+ 0 a n c ~, c ro c ~ ~z o j -am Cn to w w ro V -+ c n o~ ~-. r. l n oo ro r. cn a co -• w - ~ o ~ mm ~ ~ ~ ~ C n w - m mo a cnT ~~ ~~ ~ w a a o ~ n TIO j ~ fU O- cD W • a- wro o [D~ V, roCu -~ ~ to we w~ - n ~ D SO rn a ~ - -r. c o~ vicn ~c ~ ~ w con ro, ~ o ~ -, nm r+ ~C ~~ ro - w w~ y A ° n r O ~ ~ Vi V1 ~ T ~ O. ~ ° ~ ~ 0 - a ~ c" O -+ r* - c -• y ~ a z c ao c - w 0 - co -• ~ • ~+ ~ w ~ c n ~ - a~ ~ •t n ~ ~f w fo aQ I - DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF gE1/ELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 959fi5-3397 TELEPHONE: (9161 538-7601 FAX: 19t 61 53B-7785 MEMORANDUM TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services B. A. Kircher, Planning Director SUBJECT: Butte County Board of Supervisors, Draft Butte County Housing Element, File 92-01:01,A, Board Agenda 5/11/93 DATE: May 5, 1993 REO UEST/RECOMMENDATION Draft General Plan Housing Element for Butte County. Proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts. The Housing Element is one of seven elements of the Butte County General Plan required by State law. The purpose of the public hearing is to explain the contents of the Housing Element and the proposed housing programs, and to solicit public comments on bath the factual background information in the Element and the proposed programs. The Housing Element applies to the unincorporated County area only. According to State law, the Housing Element must contain an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs; a statement of the County's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relating to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; and a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the County will undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. All residents interested in the Housing Element are encouraged to submit their comments. Because the Housing Element addresses the special needs of certain population groups, such as elderly residents, large families, law-income families, farm worker families, single mothers, and mobility-impaired residents, members of these groups are particularly encouraged submit their comments. ~~ -; BACKGROUND: State law requires each City and County to have a general plan which includes, among other things, a housing element. The Housing Element is unique among the required General Plan elements in that state law (Section 65580 et. seq. of the Government Code) is very detailed and prescriptive regarding the contents and required programs that must be included in a housing element. State law also requires that housing elements be updated every five years; the last required update deadline for Butte County's Housing Element was July 1, 1992. State law requires a housing element to contain an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Specifically, the element must include: {a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs; {b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The total housing needs identified in {a) may exceed the available resources and the communit}~s ability to satisfy those needs; and {c) A program which- sets forth afive-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, including: (1) Identification of adequate sites that will be made available (2) Assisting the development of housing affordable to low-income (80% or less of median) and moderate ~ income (80-120%} households (3} Addressing, and where possible, removing governmental constraints (4) Conservation of and improvement in the condition of existing affordable housing stock {5) Promotion of housing opportunities for all persons (fair housing program} A key requirement of State law is that cities and counties adopt policies showing how they can designate sufficient land to meet their share of the region's housing needs. Far Butte County, a regional housing allocation plan was prepared in 1992 by the Butte County Association of Governments. This plan assigned 5,131 of over 12,000 dwelling units to the unincorporated County area as the County's share of new construction need between January 1992 and July 1997. Over half of these units should, ideally, be 2 affordable to lower-income households {households earning less than 80%a of the butte county Median income) according to the regional housing plan. The very detailed and specific requirements of State law have prescribed much of the contents of the draft Housing Element prepared by Connerly and Associates,'.Inc. As a consequence, this draft contains much more detail, and recommends additional housing programs, than are found in the County's 19$4 Housing Element. The programs contained in the draft Housing Element represent the consultant's recommendations for a legally adequate document under State law. The following are staff recommendations for revisions to the draft Butte County General Pian Housing Element in response to comments submitted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD} in its March 12, 1993 letter (attached}. Although the HCD letter contained several technical comments relating to suggested changes to background information, the focus of the letter concerned County land use policies and infrastructure availability, and how the County will ensure that it can accommodate its share of the region's lower-income housing needs. These recommended changes to the Housing Element were approved by the Planning Commission at an April $, 1993 public hearing. The following recommended changes are organized according .to the format of HCD's comments in its March 12, 1993 letter. The HCD comment is paraphrased first, and the recommended changed to the Housing Element is presented in response to the comment. A. Review and Revision HCD Comment: HCD recommends that the county's evaluation of its progress under the previous housing element (beginning on Page 3-5$) include an estimate of the number of units produced by their affordability to each of the four income groups {very law, low, moderate, 'and above moderate}. Recommended Revision: Add the following at the end of Page 3-d7: Building Permit Approved, 1985-1992 Affordable to Single-FamiIx Multi-Family Mobile home Total Above Mod Inc 3,952 0 0 3,952 Moderate Inc 1,317 0 1,314 2,631 Low Income 0 223 7S0 973 Very Low Inc 77* 75 0 1~2 TOTAL 5,346 298 2,064 7,708 3 *Second units approved by county for elderly relatives of home owners. Methodology for Estimating Housing Production and Affordability to Income Groups. The Total number of housing units produced by type is based on three sources: The Department of Finance annual building permit reports for cities and counties, the 1990 U. S. Census, and the 1992 Department of Finance E-5 (Population and Housing Unit Estimates) report. The County reviewed building permit valuations, land costs, and reported housing cost and rents from local real estate and property management sources to approximate the cost range of the three housing types reported above for the period 1985 to 1992. The County then examined incomes as reported in the 1984 Housing Element, the 1990 Census, and the Department of Housing and Community. Development's annual income guidelines. Based on the estimated cost range for each type of dwelling unit and the incomes of households in Butte County, the County calculated the approximately percentage of each type of dwelling unit that was affordable to each income group, The numbers reported above indicate the lowest income level to which each type of dwelling unit was estimated to be affordable. For example, the multi-family units developed between 1985 and 1992 were estimated to be affordable, as shown above, to very low- and low-income households. These units would also be affordable to moderate- and above moderate- income households, as well, but are credited towards meeting the needs of lowest income groups to which the units were estimated to be affordable. B. Housing Needs Resources, and Constraints. HCD Comment: HCD cornrnented that, although the number of acres shown in Table 3-21 documents that there is sufficient vacant land in the county, .the table does not clearly state that this land is located in the unincorporated area, that sufficient land can actually be developed, with water and sewer services, and that MDR and HDR densities are sufficient to accommodate lower-income housing. Finally, HCD requests that the county quantify its estimate of dwelling units that could be constructed through the redevelopment of land in existing unincorporated communities (such as Chapmantown and El Medio). Recommend Revisions: I. Change the title of Table 3-2I to: "BUTTE COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA VACANT LAND INVENTORY 2. Add the following after Table 3-21: Densities of 7 dwelling units per acre, or more, were historically adequate in the unincorporated county area to encourage and accommodate the development of affordable housing for very low- and low-income households, including mobile homes and small multi-family structures. Since I985, there has been no multi- 4 family developments in the unincorporated area of more than 12 dwelling units, and most of the multi-family structures developed between 1985 and 1992 were duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes. Given the limited land market for larger multi-family projects, and the lack of recent sales information for multi-family zoned-land, it would be difficult to speculate whether current multi-family zoning densities present a constraint to the development of lower-income housing independent of the lack of water and sewer services in many unincorporated communities. The only information available to the county during the preparation of the Housing Element regarding densities of recently developed, and proposed, multi- family development affordable to low-income households was from the City of Oroville, where several multi-family developments containing 76 units have been constructed over the past decade, and another 206 multi-family units have been approved or are pending approval. The density of affordable housing constructed in past years was 14 dwelling units per acre or less. The densities of multi-family developments approved by, or pending before, the City zange from 14 to 29 dwelling units per acre. At present, the County believes that maximum base multi- family densities of 13 and 20 dwelling units per acre, with density bonuses, are sufficient to encourage the production of affordable. housing. A developer proposing to include at least 10% very low-income units ar 20%a low-income units would be eligible fora 25% density bonus, allowing development at 16 to 25 dwelling units per acre, well within the density range of affordable housing constructed pr approved in Oraville. 3. Add the following to Page 3-27, just before the heading "SERVICES": Because the Oroville Sphere of Influence is the only identified unincorporated area which could potentially be served by excess urban sewer capacity (see below}, the County estimates that only those areas zoned MDR and HDR within the Oroville Sphere of Influence, representing 8,090 units at 7-13 units per acre and 731 units at 14-20 units per acre, could be developed at their zoning potential. Vacant land elsewhere in the unincorporated area could only be developed at six dwelling units per acre or less without sewer service, typically less if individual septic systems must be used. The County could easily accommodate its share of the region's housing needs for low- and moderate-income households in the Oroville Sphere of Influence, and its share of above moderate-income households in other areas at 1-6 dwelling units per acre. It may/$e~desirable, from a housing policy perspective, to concentrate 100% of its low- and moderate-income housing need in the Oroville area, however. The County has adapted policies in the Housing Element to encourage alternative types of housing {mobile homes, second units, etc.} which could be developed at 1-6 dwelling units per acre, but still provide some housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. 5 !. i,\ i . The County can not, at present, accommodate its share of the region's housing needs for very low-income housing because of the lack of land zoned shortage of land zoned for 14-20 dwelling units per acre with sewer service, and the limited potential for the County to rezone land for higher density use in light of this constraint. To address the constraints on the County's ability to accommodate 100%a of its very low-income housing need, the County has adopted several programs in its Housing Element to address the shortage of public facilities and services in unincorporated areas and to negotiate a transfer of a portion of the County's share of the region's housing needs to the cities. One of the primary constraints the County faces in being able to zone residential land for higher densities is imposed by the State of California through clean water laws. The Water Quality Control Board has required the County to impose low densities in residential developments employing septic systems to assure Shat their use does not cause groundwater pollution exceeding state water quality standards. C. quantified Objectives HCD Comment: HCD recommends that the County adapt an overall quantified objective for those programs which address the preservation and conservation of existing housing affordable to low-income households. The Housing Element contains individual quantified objectives for these programs (such as energy conservation, code enforcement, and rehabilitation). Recommended Revision: Combine the individual objectives for Programs 15, 16, and 27 on the "Summary of Quantified Objectives" table on Page 2-18. The "rehabilitation" objective on this table would be changed to {"Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing". The suggested quantified objective is abatement or replacement of 155 dwelling units, which are likely occupied by very low-income households; the weatherization and/or rehabilitation of 75 dwelling very low-income dwelling units, and the weatherization/rehabilitation of 125 dwelling units occupied by low-income households. D. .Housing Pro~rarres Adequate Sites HCD Comment: HCD comments that it can not determine whether the County has zoned sufficient land at adequate densities housing needs far all income groups. By Section 'b" of their letter, HCD's concerns addressed, as well. Recommended Revisions: to accommodate its share of the region's addressing the Department's comments in this section of the letter can probably be 1. amend Program 1 to include the County's application for planning grants in 1993 and 1994 to study the most practical methods of expanding water and sewer b service over the next three to five years and a County commitment to consider voter approval of assessment districts in the fall of 1994 in communities in which land is zoned for MDR and HDR use, should the results o£ the planning studies indicate that such mechanism are financially feasible and appropriate, and there appears to be community support, to expand water and sewer service. 2. Add the following program: 4A Negotiate 'I~ansfer of A Portion of the County's REgional Share State Housing Element Law provides a mechanism whereby jurisdictions may negotiate to transfer a portion of their share of a region's housing needs among neighboring communities within a county. This arrangement makes particular sense under circumstance in which land is a rural county is typically developed through annexation to an incorporated area which can provide urban services. Except in already urbanized unincorporated communities with services, or in unincorporated area which are appropriate for the development of self-contained new communities, it makes little sense for a rural county to attempt to provide urban services among widely scattered communities, unless a proposed development can eventually be annexed to an existing urban community with those services. Butte County finds itself in the position of having to accommodate a large share of the region's housing needs for Iaw- and moderate-income households over a five-year period without practical tools to do so in the short term, except through ;., cooperative agreements with the cities. The County will attempt to reach agreements with the cities, therefore, to allow a :reasonable transfer of the County's share of the regions's housing needs where unincorporated areas an be served within Existing spheres of influence. The basis of the negotiation will be the amount of unincorporated land that the cities could reasonable be expected to serve at higher densities through 1997. Administration/Funding: The Planning Department will recommend agreements to negotiate with the cities which would specify the number of dwelling units of need, by income group, proposed far transfer. Timeframe: Present recommendation to Board of Supervisors by January 1994, conclude agreements with cities by January 1995. Expected Results: Can not be quantified at this time until Planning Department can develop specific recommendation to Board. 3. A specific timeframe in Program 7 should be included, such as by the end of 1994, 7 by which tune the County would conduct meetings with Large landholders interested in development and reaching an agreement on an arrangement (probably developer-financed) to conduct feasibility studies to determine the potentially for using Mellow-Roos districts for large-scale development proposals. 4. Review existing second unit and mobile home zoning code provisions to determine how the County could better encourage these alternative types of housing. Adopt changes to zoning code by the end of 1993, if any seem appropriate, to encourage the placement of mobile homes and the construction of second units ("granny flats") as alternative ways of meeting the County's affordable housing needs. Equal Housing Opportunities HCD Comment: HCD recommends that Program 24, regarding fair housing. be amended to include the dissemination of information on anti-discrimination laws. Recommended Revision: -Amend Program 24 to specifically include the dissemination of such information to community organizations which serve client groups most potentially affected by housing discrimination. The County could also enlist the assistance of these community organizations in translating information to other languages. Density Bonus HCD Comment: HCD's comment is advisory, and suggests a potential conflict with state density bonus law, which prohibits local jurisdictions from offering other density bonuses which could discourage developer interest in low-income density bonuses. Recommended Revision: Amend Program 6 to state that density bonuses for housing affordable to households earning between 80% and 100% of the median County income only be offered in the LDR zone sa that it does not potentially conflict with low-income density bonuses which could be offered in the MDR and HDR zones. RECOMMENDATION: A. Adopt a Resolution approving the Housing Element. /lr c:\wp50~boardlts\motion.hos S